^, 
 
 w. 
 
 S> 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 /. 
 
 & 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 !f IM IIIIIM 
 
 It lig 1 2.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 1.4 
 
 1.6 
 
 6" 
 
 
 O;^ 
 
 Photograpliic 
 
 Sdences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 ^% 
 
 ^<b 
 
 V 
 
 
 '^W 
 
 ^ 
 
 >^ 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
 

 (/a 
 
 k 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Instltut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 n 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 Couverture endommagie 
 
 □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurie et/ou peiliculAe 
 
 □ Cover title missing/ 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 □ Coloured maps/ 
 Cartes g6ographiques en couleur 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured Ink (I.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 □ 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Relii avec d'autres documents 
 
 \~yf Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 
 I I along interior margin/ 
 
 Lareilure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge int6rieure 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted *rom filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte. 
 mais, lorsque cela itait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6t6 film6es. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppldmentaires; 
 
 L'lnstitu2 a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6ti possible de &e procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger una 
 modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage 
 sont indiquAs ci-dessous. 
 
 I I Coloured pages/ 
 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagdes 
 
 Pages restored and/oi 
 
 Pages restaurdes et/ou pelllcul6es 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxei 
 Pages d6color6es, tachet^es ou piqudes 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages ddtachdes 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of prir 
 
 Quality indgale de I'impresslon 
 
 Includes supplementary materii 
 Comprend du materiel suppiimentaire 
 
 I — j Pages damaged/ 
 
 I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 
 I I Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 
 I I Pages detached/ 
 
 r~U Showthrough/ 
 
 I I Quality of print varies/ 
 
 r 1 Includes supplementary material/ 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc.. have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partieiiement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata. une pelure. 
 etc., ont 6X6 filmdes A nouveau de fapon d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 
 
 
 
 
 14X 
 
 
 
 18X 
 
 
 
 
 22X 
 
 
 
 
 26X 
 
 
 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 
 
 
 16X 
 
 
 
 2D\ 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 24X 
 
 
 
 
 28X 
 
 
 
 
 32X 
 
 1 
 
The copy filmed here hes been reproduced thenks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Metropolitan Toronto Library 
 Social Sciences Department 
 
 L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grAce A la 
 gAnirositA de: 
 
 Metropolitan Toronto Library 
 Social Sciences Department 
 
 The images appearing here are the bost quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated Impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or Illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol ^^> (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Les images suivantes ont M reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la netteti de l'exemplaire film6, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprim6e sont fiim6s en commen^ant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont fiimis en commenpant par la 
 premiere page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole — ^- signifse "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbols V signifie "FIN ". 
 
 IVIaps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent dtre 
 film6s i des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul clich6. ii est fiimd d partir 
 de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite. 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la methods. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 32X 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 

 5f- 
 
 METROPOLITAN 
 •TORONTO . 
 LIBRARY. . , . 
 
 « "f* " ' » 
 
 
 789 
 YONGE 
 TORONTO ■ 
 M4W 2G8 
 
 I 
 
 V 
 
 I. 
 
 I' 
 
 f 
 
 f 
 
 SA^ 
 
 By 
 
 I/ATE PROF] 
 
 ;• 
 
 ii '•■ 
 
 PUBLISHEl 
 

 VIEWS 
 
 iV, 
 
 
 ^. 
 
 k 
 
 . kr 
 
 (1F 
 
 SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 By rev. C. G. FINNEY, 
 
 LATB3 PROFESSOR OP THEOLOGY IN THE OBRRLTN COLLEGIATE 
 
 INSTITUTE. 
 
 *\/ 
 
 TORONTO: 
 Published by Toronto Willard Tract Depository. 
 
 1877. 
 
 rally, 
 
 , now 
 
 rality 
 
 onto, 
 
 n the 
 
 ^ord, 
 
 : our 
 
 i the 
 
 r the 
 
 ower 
 
 this 
 
 ither 
 
 " any 
 
 jsues 
 
 the 
 
 )oks, 
 
 / the 
 
 r the 
 
 i 
 
 pply. 
 
 s on 
 
 and 
 
 they 
 
 &c., 
 
 ap- 
 
 nce- 
 
 r in 
 
 -I 
 
i< > 
 
 6^^^0C 
 
 9 
 
 
 TORONTO : 
 
 PRINTED BY HILL AND WKIR, 
 13 VICTOBIA STREET. 
 
 • ■ • 
 
 
 ^' i-^^id 
 
 " 
 
 I 
 
w 
 
 1 1 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 " 
 
 TORONTO WTLLARD TRACT DKPOSITORV, 
 SHAFTESBURY HALL. 
 
 ESTABLISHED 1875. 
 
 For the information qi' Christians generally, 
 it may be briefly statecf tTiat this Institution, now 
 in full operation, owes its origin to the liberality 
 of a Christian gentleman, a resident of Toronto, 
 who has invested a portion of his means in the 
 enterprise, as a freewill offering to the Lord, 
 with the view of scattering broadcast over our 
 land Tracts, Books, &c., &c., which unfold the 
 exalted privileges of believers, and treat of the 
 " Life of Faith" or Trust, and of the Power 
 and Peace of Holiness. 
 
 Special notice is called to the fact that this 
 is no denominational institution. It is neither 
 connected with, nor under the patronage of any 
 particular church. All the publications it issues 
 will be strictly evangelical, and will meet the 
 wants of all Christians. Largely the Books, 
 Tracts, &c., &c.. will be those published by the 
 Willard Tract Repository of Boston, under the 
 care of the well known Dr. Cullis. 
 
 But this willnot, by any means, limit the supply. 
 The stock will be enriched b)^ publications on 
 Scriptural Holiness, and other religious and 
 Gospel literature, from whatever source they 
 can be obtained, (including books, tracts, &c., 
 published by ourselves), and that may be ap- 
 proved of by the Committee. 
 
 We would say here that since the commence- 
 ment of this work, a- good Christian brother in 
 
IV. 
 
 England, Mr. Arthur Burson, 31 Piccadilly, 
 M.uichester, has kindly offered his services 
 (which have been accepted) as our representa- 
 tive in the old land, and will send out regular 
 supplies of the latest and best Tracts and Books, 
 &c., published from time to time. 
 
 All Profits that mny be made will be devoted 
 to the establishment of di fund for gratuitous dis- 
 tribtition of the tracts and books, to persons and 
 places where they are needed, as may be directed 
 by the Committee. We beg also to say that 
 this fund for free distribution is open for dona- 
 tions to all who may desire to help in this v/ork 
 of God. 
 
 We ask all who may desire to promote the 
 higher spiritual life of the churches, and to help 
 in winning souls for Christ, to co-operate with 
 us by circulating sound religious literature 
 throughout the land. 
 
 References for further information may be 
 made to the following brethren (and others who 
 may be added), who will act as a Committee for 
 selection and distribution. 
 
 Rev. John Potts, Methodist. 
 
 Canon Innes, Episcopal. 
 
 R. Wallace, Presbyterian. 
 
 T. GuTTERY, Primitive Methodist. 
 
 R. Cameron, Baptist. 
 
 J. A. R. Dickson, Congregationalist. 
 
 J. Douglas, Presbyterian. 
 Mr. G. Hague, Congregationalist. 
 
 R. W. Laird, Baptist. 
 
 W. T. Mason, Methodist. 
 
 CoL. Burton, Christian. 
 
 (( 
 
 (( 
 
 <( 
 
 (( 
 
 n 
 
 u 
 
 n 
 
 it 
 
 it 
 
 i 
 
 \ 
 
V. 
 
 i* 
 
 Mr. W. A. Parlane, Episcopal. 
 
 " T. J. WiLKiE, Congregationalist. 
 It is with much thankfuhiess to our heavenly 
 
 Father that we are able to state that since the 
 opening of the Depository, in October last, the 
 sales have steadily increased ; so much so, that 
 at the last meeting of the Committee they felt 
 pleased to recommend the removal of the 
 Depository into larger apartments as early as 
 possible. 
 
 Our hearts have been rejoiced from time to 
 time by the receipt of many testimonies, and the 
 manifest appreciation of this work by members 
 of all evangelical denominations, all of which 
 are gratefully acknov/ledged. 
 
 Toronto, y^w^ 6th, 1876. 
 
 Since the above date we have acted in ac- 
 cordance with the recommendation of Committee 
 (as above) and have moved therefore to Large 
 Store on the Ground Floor of Shaftesbury 
 Hall, and are thankful to report that the busi- 
 ness has increased so as to exceed our most 
 sanguine expectations. Complete catalogues sent 
 free on application. 
 
 S. R. BRIGGS, 
 
 May 27th, 1877. 
 
 Manager, 
 
'i 
 
 VI. 
 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 
 Notice by the Rev. J. Potts. 
 
 I have read with interest and profit "Finney, 
 on Sanctification," and can most snicerely advise, 
 and rejoice, in its re-pnbhcation in Canada. It 
 cannot be expected that every idea and phrase 
 would receive my endorsation, but as a treatise on 
 the great theme of full salvation, 1 wish it a career 
 of extraordinary success in the fulhlme.U of its 
 benign mission to the pe(3ple of God. 
 
 The doctrine of Holiness is presented in all 
 the clearness and force of Scripture language. 
 
 The blessedness of heart-purity is unfolded 
 in its many and attractive aspects, leading the 
 reader to desire, with a growing interest, the ex- 
 perimental possession of such an heritage of 
 grace. The obligation of its attainment is en- 
 forced with a power of argument and an aptness 
 of Bible quotation which are absolutely convinc- 
 ing to all earnest seekers of the great salvation. 
 
 Difficulties are met and disposed of with 
 singular ability, until the pilgrims of the wilder- 
 ness of doubts and fears see their Divine Joshua 
 ready to lead them into the victorious possession 
 of the Canaan of perfect love. 
 
 There is no sign of the times so full of hope 
 for the future of the Redeemer's Kingdom as the 
 manifest hungering and thirsting of God's people 
 for " Holiness unto the Lord/' The special litera- 
 ture of this subject is sought for and appreciated 
 in a most encouraging degree. 
 
 Next to the prayerful and believing study of 
 the infallible Text Book of Holiness, books de- 
 signed to illustrate the sacred theme should b(? 
 
 k* 
 
 \ 
 
 i 
 
vn. 
 
 
 earnes<^'y read. There is no doctrine of revelation 
 more prominently put before the Church in the 
 Scriptures than the subject of holiness. Holiness 
 is conspicuous in the ritual of the Old Testament 
 economy. It is proclaimed in the language of 
 prophecy, as to its c(Miimonness in trie Gospel 
 day — " In that day there shall be written upon the 
 bells of the horses holiness unto the Lord." It is 
 subject of direct command : " Be ye holy, for I am 
 holy." It shines in the promisesof God : "Having 
 therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us 
 cleanse ourselves from all hlthiness of the flesh 
 and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." 
 It was the subject of prayers offered by Christ 
 and His apostles : — Jesus prayeduntothe Father: 
 " Sanctify them through thy truth ; thy word is 
 truth. ' Paul prayed that this great blessing 
 might be enjoyed by the churches in Ephesus 
 and Thessalonica. — Eph. iii. 16-19. i Thess. v. 23. 
 Believing as I do thatholinessisthe Church's 
 need and the Church's power to accomplish her 
 mighty mission of saving the world, I commend 
 this little book to all who are desiring to " bear 
 fruit unto holiness." 
 
 " What is our calling's glorious liope 
 But inward holiness? 
 P'or this to Jesus 1 look up, 
 I calmly wait for this. 
 
 '* I wait till He shall touch me clean, 
 Shall life and power impart ; 
 Give me the faith that casts out sin, 
 And purifies the I -art." 
 
 Toronto, April, 1877. 
 
 JOHN POTTS. 
 
M 
 
 VUl. 
 
 Notice by the Rev. J. A. R. Dickson. 
 
 Havinf( examined with some measure of care 
 the following little treatise of Prot. Finney, on 
 Sanctification, 1 most heartily believe that it is a 
 work calculated to do good in a very high degree. 
 Prof. Finney did not write to silit the views of 
 any theological school, he read and studied and 
 interpreted the ]:Jible for himself as one account- 
 able to God under the law and light of the Bible, 
 and this is the result of his investigations and 
 thoughts on this important doctrine, this essential 
 doctrine of the Sacred Scripture. He has, like 
 every other writer, his own way of expressing his 
 thoughts, and I confess that often I would have 
 preferred a different statement, yet his extremest 
 views are all justified by that utterance of our 
 Lord, ** Be ye perfect, even as your Father which 
 is in heaven is perfect." I would caution any 
 reader against prejudging the author by iso- 
 lated sentences or paragraphs: the book must be 
 taken as one deliverance on the subject, and 
 therefore his full-orbed conception must be obtain- 
 ed e'er any judgment can be reached. When that 
 is done I am confident there will be fewdissentients, 
 and many admiring and praising hearts. The 
 book is marked by all the literary excellencies of 
 the author. He is original in thought, and there- 
 fore striking ; simple in style, and therefore clear; 
 logical in presentation, and therefore convincing; 
 concise in statement, and therefore comprehensi- 
 ble. In his life, which was altogether a remarkable 
 one, he was honored in doing a great work for 
 God : great as an evangelist, great as a professor, 
 
 I' 
 
 i 
 
IX. 
 
 great as a writer, and, above all, great as a living 
 exemplification of the truth ; and now that he 
 has gone to his reward, I joy to think that his 
 spirit, embalmed in his book will work for the 
 glory of Christ still. My prayer is that this little 
 treatise may lift many of God's dear children into 
 the clear light, and lead them to walk in paths of 
 righteousness for His name sake. 
 
 JAMES A. R. DICKSON. 
 
 Toronto, May, 1877. 
 
X. 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 The substance of this treatise has formerly ap- 
 peared in the OberHn Evangelist, in the form of 
 a course of lectures. Its publication in a more 
 permanent form is thought by many to be impor- 
 tant, and in preparing it for the press, 1 have 
 been obliged, for want of time, to suffer it to re- 
 main very nearly in the same form in v^Iiich it at 
 first appeared, with only a few such additions as 
 I have been able to make under the pressure of 
 other and multiplied engagements. These lec- 
 tures were originally prepared in great haste, 
 amid the labors and responsibilities of a powerful 
 revival of religion, in which I was at the time 
 employed by the Great Head of the Church. 
 They ^vere sent to the press from a rough draft, 
 as \^ n jb entirel}^ out of my power to re- write and 
 thn w them into a more acceptable form. 
 
 i 'iiP treatise contains but a skeleton view of 
 the subject, to which very extensive additions 
 might be made, and perhaps profitably made, had 
 I time to bestow upon such a labor. 
 
 I have hoped to receive such suggestions con- 
 cerning the lectures as they appeared in the Evan- 
 gelist, either from those who oppose or maintain 
 the doctrine advocated in them, as would enable 
 me, should they be called for in a book form, to 
 make such explanations, answer such objections, 
 and make such additions or subtractions, as the 
 interests of truth might deniand. As, however, 
 
XI. 
 
 ;. 
 
 I have been able to gain no additional light upon 
 the subject from any of these sources, and have 
 heard or seen but very few things worthy of no- 
 tice in respect to them, I give them to the public, 
 as I have said, almost entirely as they were at 
 first written. 
 
 As I am not at all interested in their sale, and 
 have nothing to hope or fear in respect to loss or 
 gain in the event of their pubhcation, in a pecu- 
 niary point of view, it matters nothing to me 
 whether they are read or not, any farther than the 
 cause of truth is concerned. For the sake of 
 truth alone, I at first wrote them. For the sake 
 of what I regard to be truth alone, I have con- 
 sented to their publication in this form. 
 
 1 commit the little treatise to the Great Head 
 of the Church. And if these thoughts can be 
 made instrumental in promoting His glory, and 
 the interests of His kingdom, I shall feel myself 
 happ}' to have had the honor of communicating 
 thoughts which are owned and blessed of Him. 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
SANCTIFICATIOK 
 
 *• And the very (iod of peace sanctify you wholly ; and I 
 ]iray God your whole spirit, and soul, and body be preserved 
 blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faith- 
 ful is he that calleth you, who also will do it." — i T/tess. v. 
 23. 24. 
 
 In discussing the subject of Sanctification, 1 
 design to pursue the following order : 
 
 I. Define the meaning of the term Sanc- 
 tification. 
 
 II. What I understand by entire Sancti- 
 fication. 
 
 III. Notice the distinction between en- 
 tire AND permanent SaNCTIFICATION. 
 
 IV. Show what is not implied in entire 
 Sanctification. 
 
 V. What is implied in entire Sanctifica- 
 tion. 
 
 VI. Show that a state of entire and per- 
 manent Sanctification is attainable in this 
 
 LIFE. 
 
 VII. Answer some objections. 
 VIIL Show when it is attainable. 
 IX. How it 'is attainable. 
 
 It will be seen at once, that this outline is suf- 
 ficiently extensive to fill a large volume, should 
 I protract the discussion as I easily and perhaps 
 profitably might. My design is to condense what 
 

 SANXTIFICATION. 
 
 13 
 
 I have to sa}^ as nuicli as jx^ssible, and yet pre- 
 serve sufficient perspicuii} . i shall encle.i\ eir nul 
 to be tedious. And yet I hope to be understood, 
 and to be able to " commend myself to every 
 man's conscience in the sight of God." I will, 
 
 I. Define the term SauctiJication._ 
 
 Here let me remark, that a definition of terms 
 in all discussions is of prime importance. Espe- 
 cially is this true of this subject. I have observ- 
 ed that almost without an exception, those who 
 have written on this subject dissenting from the 
 views entertained here, do so upon the ground 
 that they understand and define the terms, Sanc- 
 tification, and Christian Perfection, differently 
 from what we do. Ever}^ one gives his own 
 definition, varying materiall}' from others and 
 from what we understand by the terms. And 
 then they go on professedly opposing the doctrine 
 as inculcated here. Now this is not only utterly 
 unfair, but palpably absurd. If I oppose a doc- 
 trine inculcated by another man, I am bound to 
 oppose what he really holds. If I misrepresent 
 his sentiments, ** I fight as one that beateth the 
 air." I have been amazed at the diversity of 
 definitions that have been given to the terms 
 Christian Perfection, Sanctification, &c.; and to 
 witness the diversity of opinion as to what is, 
 and what is not, implied in these terms. One 
 objects wholly to the use of the term Christian 
 Perfection, because in his estimation it implies 
 this and that and the other thing, which I do not 
 suppose are at all implied in it. Another objects 
 to our using the term Sanctification, because that 
 
1 ! 
 
 vii'.ws or 
 
 «: I 
 
 3 
 
 ifiiplies, acconlin*^ to liis niKlerstaiiflinj^ of it, 
 certain tilings tlial render its use iin])roper. Now 
 It is no part of my design to dispute about the 
 use of words. I must however use some terms ; 
 and 1 ought to be allowed to use Bible language, 
 in its Scriptural sense as 1 understand it. And 
 if I should sufficiently explain my meaning and 
 define the sense in which I use the terms, this 
 ought to suffice. And 1 beg that nothing more 
 nor less may be understood by the language I use 
 than 1 profess to mean by it. Others may, if 
 they please, use the same terms and give a dif- 
 ferent definition of them. But I have a right to 
 hope and expect, if they feel called upon to op- 
 pose what I say, that they will bear in mind my 
 definition of the terms, and not pretend, as some 
 have done, to oppose my views, while they have 
 only differed from me in their definition of the 
 terms used, giving their own definition varying 
 materially and I might say infinitely from the 
 sense in which I use the same terms, and then 
 arraying their arguments to prove that according 
 to their definition of it, Sanctification is not really 
 attainable in this life, when no one here or any 
 where else, that I ever heard of, pretended that 
 in their sense of the term, it ever was or ever 
 will be attainable in this life, and I might add, or 
 in that which is to come. 
 
 Sanctification is a term of frequent use in the 
 Bible. Its simple and primary meaning is a state 
 of consecration to God. To sanctify is to set 
 apart to a holy use — to consecrate a thing to the 
 service of God. A state of sanctification is a 
 state of consecration, or a being set apart to the 
 
i I 
 
 SANL riiicA rioN. 
 
 15 
 
 service of God. Tliis is ])lainly both the Old 
 and the New Testament use of the term. 
 
 II. WJiat is entire Sanctification. 
 
 By entire sanctification, I understand the con- 
 secration of the whole being to God. In other 
 words it is that state of devotedness to God and 
 His service, required by the moral law. The law 
 is perfect. It requires just what is right, all that 
 is right, and nothing more. Nothing more or 
 less can possibly be Perfection or entire Sanctifi- 
 cation, than obedience to the law. Obedience to 
 the law of God in an infant, a man, an angel, 
 and in God himself, is perfection in each of them. 
 And nothing can possibly be perfection in any 
 being short of this, nor can there possibly be any 
 thing above it. 
 
 III. The distinction hei>-ween entire and per- 
 manent Sanctification. 
 
 That a thing or a person may be for the time 
 being wholly consecrated to God, and afterwards 
 desecrated or diverted from that service, is cer- 
 tain. That Adam and *' the angels who kept not 
 their first estate" were entirel}^ sanctified and yet 
 not permanently so, is also certain. 
 
 By permanent sanctification, I understand then 
 a state not only of entire but of perpetual, un- 
 ending consecration to God. 
 
 IV. What is not implied in entire Sanctification. 
 
 As the law of God is the standard and the only 
 standard by which the question in regard to 
 what is not, and what is implied in entire Sanc- 
 
 \ 
 
x6 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 tification, is to be decided, it is of fundamental 
 importance that we understand wliat is and what 
 is not implied in entire obedience to this law. It 
 must be apparent to all that this inquiry is of 
 prime importance. And to settle this question is 
 one of the main things to be attended to in this 
 discussion. The doctrine of the entire sanctifi- 
 cation of believers in this life, can never be 
 satisfactorily settled until it is understood. And 
 it cannot be understood unt.l it is known what 
 is and what is not implied in it. Our judgment 
 of our own state or of the state of others, can 
 never be relied upon till these inquiries are 
 settled. Nothing is more clear than that in the 
 present vague unsettled views of the Church 
 upon this question, no individual could set up 
 a claim to having attained this state without 
 being a stumbling block to the Church. Christ 
 was perfect, and yet so erroneous were the notions 
 of the Jews in regard to what constituted perfec- 
 tion, that they thought Him possessed with a 
 devil instead of being holy as He claimed to be. 
 It certainly is impossible that a person should 
 profess this state without being a stumbling 
 block to himself and to others unless he and they 
 clearly understand what is not and what is im- 
 plied in it. I will state then wdiat is not implied 
 in a state of entire sanctification, as I understand 
 the law of God. The law as epitomized by Christ, 
 "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy 
 heart, with all thy mind, and with all thy strength, 
 and thy neighbor as thyself," I understand to lay 
 down the whole duty of man to God and to his 
 fellow-breatures. Now the questions are, what 
 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 17 
 
 is not, and what is implied in perfect obedience 
 to this law. Vague notions in regard to these 
 questions seem to me to have been the origin of 
 much error on the subject of entire sanctification. 
 To settle this question it is indispensable that 
 we have distinctly before our minds just rules of 
 legal interpretation. I will therefore lay down 
 some first principles in regard to the interpreta- 
 tion of law, in the light of which, I think we may 
 safely proceed to settle these questions. 
 
 Rule I. Whatever is inconsistent with natural 
 justice is not and cannot be law. 
 
 2. Whatever is inconsistent with the nature 
 and relations of moral beings, is contrary to 
 natural justice and therefore cannot be law. 
 
 3. That which requires more than man has 
 natural ability to perform, is inconsistent with 
 his nature and relations and therefore is incon- 
 sistent with natural justice, and of course is not 
 law. 
 
 4. Law then must always be so understood 
 and interpreted as to consist with the nature of 
 the subjects, and with their relations to each 
 other and to the lawgiver. Any interpretation 
 that makes the law to require more or less than 
 is consistent with the nature and relations of 
 moral beings, is a virtual setting aside of law, or 
 the same as to declare that it is not law. No 
 authority in heaven or on earth can make that 
 law, or obligatory upon moral agents, which is 
 inconsistent with their nature and relations. 
 
 5. Law must always be so interpreted as to 
 cover the whole ground of natural right or justice. 
 It must be so understood and explained as to 
 
l8 
 
 ViliWb VI- 
 
 require all that is W/,'-/// /;/ itsel/y and therefore 
 inimutahly and u u alt cr ably right. Whatever pro- 
 fesses to be law and will not bear this construc- 
 tion, is not and cannot be law. 
 
 6. Law must be so interpreted as not to require 
 any thing more than is consistent with natural 
 justice or with the nature and relations of moral 
 beings. Whatever will not bear such a construc- 
 tion is not law. 
 
 7. Of course laws are never to be so interpre- 
 ted as to imply tne possession of any attributes 
 or strength and perfection of attributes which 
 the subject does not possess. Take for illustra- 
 tion the second commandment, *' Thou shalt love 
 thy neighbor as thyself." The simple meaning 
 of this commandment seems to be that we are to 
 regard and treat every person and interest ac- 
 cording to its relative value. Now we are not 
 to understand this commandment as expressly 
 or impliedly requiring us to know in all cases the 
 exact relative value of every person and thing in 
 the universe: for this would imply the possession 
 of the attribute of omniscience by us. No mind 
 short of an omniscient one can have this know- 
 ledge. The commandment then must be so 
 understood as only to require us to judge with 
 candor of the relative value of different interests, 
 and treat them according to their value so far as 
 we understand it. 1 repeat the rule therefore. 
 Laws are never to be so interpreted as to imply 
 the possession of any attribute or strength and 
 perfection of attributes which the subject does 
 not possess. 
 
 8. Law is never to be so interpreted as to 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
SANirriFirATioN. 
 
 10 
 
 require that which is naturally impossible on 
 
 
 E. 
 
 The first 
 
 to 
 
 account oi our circumstances, 
 commandment, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy 
 God with all thy heart, &c." is not to be so in- 
 terpreted as to require us to make God the con- 
 stant and sole object of attention, thought, and 
 affection, for this would not only be plainly 
 impossible in our circumstances but manifestly 
 contrary to our duty. 
 
 9. Law is never to be so interpreted as to 
 make one requirement inconsistent with another; 
 e. g. if the first commandment be so interpreted 
 that we are required to make God the only object 
 of thought, attention, and affection, then we 
 cannot obey the second commandment, which 
 requires us to love our neighbor. And if the 
 first commandment is to be so understood that 
 every faculty and power is to be directed solely 
 and exclusively to the contemplation and love of 
 God, then love to all other beings is prohibited 
 and the second commandment is set aside. I 
 repeat the rule therefore: Laws are not to be so 
 interpreted as to conflict with each other. 
 
 10. A law requiring perpetual benevolence 
 must be so construed as to consist with, and 
 require all the appropriate and essential modifica- 
 tions of this principle under every circumstance; 
 such as justice, mercy, anger at sin and sinners, 
 and a special and complacent regard to those 
 who are virt'ious. 
 
 11. Law must be so interpreted as that its 
 claims shall always be restricted to the voluntary 
 powers. To attempt to legislate over the invol- 
 untary powers, would be inconsistent with 
 
20 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 i:| 
 
 natural justice, ^'oii may as well attempt to 
 legislate over the bcaUiigs of the heart as o\er 
 any involuntary mental actions. 
 
 12. In morals, actual knowledpje is indispen- 
 sable to obligation. The maxim " ignorantia legis 
 non excusat " — ignorance of the law excuses no 
 one, applies in morals to but a very limited ex- 
 tent. That actual knowledge is indispensable 
 to moral obligation, will appear. 
 
 (i.) From the following Scriptures: 
 
 James iv. 17 : ** Therefore to him that knoweth 
 to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." 
 Luke xii. 47, 48 : " And that servant which 
 knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, 
 neither did according to his will, shall be beaten 
 with many stripes. Bu«t he that knew not, and 
 did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be 
 beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever 
 much is given, of him shall much be required ; 
 and to whom men have committed much, of him 
 they will ask the more." John ix. 11: "Jesus 
 said unto them, if ye were blind, ye should have 
 no sin : but now ye say, we see ; therefore 5^our 
 sin remaineth." In the first and second chapters 
 of Romans, the Apostle reasons at large on this 
 subject. He convicts the heathen of sin, upon 
 the ground that they violate their own conscience, 
 and do not live according to the light they have. 
 
 (2.) The principle is everywhere recognized 
 in the Bible, that an increase of knowledge in- 
 creases obligation. This impliedly, but plainly 
 recognizes the principle that knowledge is indis- 
 pensable to, and commensurate with obligation. 
 In sins of ignorance, the sin lies in the ignorance 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 21 
 
 »» 
 
 itself, but not in the nep^lect of what is unknown. 
 A man may be guilty of present or past neglect 
 to ascertain the truth. Here his ignorance is 
 sin. The heathen are culpable for not living up to 
 the light of nature, but are under no obligation 
 to embrace Christianity until they have the op- 
 portunity to do so. 
 
 13. Moral laws are to be so interpreted as to 
 be consistent with physical laws. In other words, 
 the application of the moral law to human beings, 
 must recognize man as he is, as both a physical 
 and intellectual being; and must be so interpreted 
 as that obedience to it shall not violate the laws 
 of the physical constitution, and prove the pre- 
 mature destruction of the boc.y. 
 
 14. Law is to be so interpreted as to recognize 
 all the attributes and circumstances of both body 
 and soul. In the application of the law of God 
 to human beings, we are to regard their powers 
 and attributes as they really are, and not as they 
 are not. 
 
 15. Law is to be so interpreted as to restrict its 
 obligation to the actions, and not to extend it to 
 the nature or constitution of moral beings. Law 
 must not be understood as extending its legisla- 
 tion to the nature, or requiring a man to possess 
 certain attributes, but as prescribing a rule of 
 action. It is not the existence or possession of 
 certain attributes which the law requires, or that 
 these attributes should be in a certain state of 
 perfection ; but the right use of all these attri- 
 butes as they are, is what the law is to be inter- 
 preted as requiring. 
 
 16. It should be always understood that the 
 
^-1! 
 
 vir.wf; OF 
 
 obedience of the heart to any law, implies, and 
 includes, j^^eneral faith or confidence in the law- 
 giver. Hut no law should be so construed as to 
 require faith in what the intellect does not per- 
 ceive. A man may be under oblijjjation to per- 
 ceive what he does not ; \. e., it may be his duty 
 to incpiire after, and ascertain the truth. But 
 obligation to believe with the heart, does not 
 attach until the intellect obtains a perception of 
 the things to be believed. 
 
 Now, in the light of these rules, let us proceed 
 to inquire, 
 
 1. H^Jidl is not, and, 
 
 2. What is implied in perfect obedience to the 
 law of (iod, or in entire sanctification. 
 
 1. Entire sanctification does not imply any 
 change in the substance of the soul or body, for 
 this the 'aw does not require, and it would not be 
 obligato/y if it did, because the requirement 
 would be inconsistent with natural justice. En- 
 tire sanctification is the entire consecration of 
 the powers, as they are, to God. It does not im- 
 ply any change in the powers themselves, but 
 simply the right use of them. 
 
 2. It does not imply any annihilation of con- 
 stitutional traits of character, such as constitu- 
 tional ardor or impetuosity. There is nothing, 
 certainly, in the law of God that requires such 
 constitutional traits to be annihilated, but simply 
 that they should be rightly directed in their ex- 
 ercise. 
 
 3. It does not imply the annihilation of any of 
 the constitutional appetites, or susceptibilities. 
 It seems to be supposed by some, that the con- 
 
SANCTIMCATION. 
 
 23 
 
 stitutional appetites and susceptibilities, are in 
 themselves sinful, and that a state ot entire sanc- 
 tification would retpiire their total annihilation. 
 And 1 have often been astonished at the fact that 
 those who array themselves against the doctrine 
 of entire sanctification in this life, assunu the 
 sinfulnessof the constitution of men. And I have 
 not been a little surprised to find that some per- 
 sons who I had supposed were far enough from 
 embracing the doctrine of physical depravity, 
 were, after all, resorting to this assumption to 
 set aside the doctrine of entire sanctification in 
 this life. Hut let us appeal to the law. Does 
 the law anywhere, expressly or impliedly, con- 
 demn the constitution of man, or recjuire the 
 annihilation of anything that is properly a part 
 of tlie constitution itself? Does it require the 
 annihilation of the appetite for food, or is it 
 satisfied merely with regulating its indulgence ? 
 In short, does the law of God anywhere require 
 anything more than the consecration of all the 
 appetites and susceptibilities of the body and 
 mind, to the service of God ? 
 
 In conversing with me on this subject not 
 long since, a brother insisted that a man might 
 perpetually obey the law of God, and be guilty 
 of no actual transgression, and yet not be entirely 
 sanctified : for he insisted that there might be 
 that in him which would lay the foundation for 
 his sinning at a future time. When questioned 
 in regard to what that something in him was, 
 he replied, " that which first led him to sin at 
 the beginning of his moral exister 3." I an- 
 swered that that which first led him to sin, was 
 
24 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 h u> 
 
 ll!> 
 
 his innocent constitution, just as it was the inno- 
 cent constitution of Adam, to which the tempta- 
 tion was addressed, that led him into sin. Adam's 
 innocent constitutional appetites, when excited 
 by the presence of objects fitted to excite them, 
 were a sufficient temptation to- lead him to con- 
 sent to prohibited indulgence, which constituted 
 his sin. Now just so it certainly is with every 
 human being. This constitution, the substance 
 of his body and soul, cannot certainly have any 
 moral character. But when these appetites, 
 which are essential to his nature and have no 
 moral character in themselves, are excited, they 
 lead to prohibited indulgence, and in this way 
 every human being is led into sin. Now if a 
 man cannot be entirely sanctified until that is 
 annihilated which first occasioned his sin, it does 
 not appear that he ever can be entirely sanctified 
 while he possesses either body or soul. I insist 
 upon it, therefore, that entire sanctification does 
 not imply the annihilation of any constitutional 
 appetite or susceptibility, but only the entire 
 consecration of the whole constitution as it is, to 
 the service of God. 
 
 4. Entire sanctification does not imply the an- 
 nihilation of natural affection or resentment. By 
 this I mean that certain persons ma}^ be naturally 
 pleasing to us. Christ appears to have had a 
 natural affection for John. By natural resent- 
 ment I mean, that, from the laws of our jeing, 
 we must resent or feel opposed to injustice or ill 
 treatment. Not that a disposition to retaliate or 
 revenge ourselves is consistent with the law of 
 God. But perfect obedience to the law of God, 
 
 ^^1 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 25 
 
 does not imply that we should have no sense of 
 injury and injustice when we are abused. God 
 has this, and ought to have it, and so does every 
 moral being. To love your neighbor as yourself 
 does not imply that if he injure you, you feel no 
 sense of the injury or injustice, but that you love 
 him and would do him good, notwithstanding his 
 injurious treatment. 
 
 5. It does not imply any unhealthy degree of 
 excitement of mind. Rule thirteenth lays down 
 the principle that moral law is to be so interpreted 
 as to be consistent with physical law. God's 
 laws certainly do not clash with each other. And 
 the moral law cannot require such a state of con- 
 stant mental excitement as will destroy the physi- 
 cal constitution. It cannot require any more 
 mental excitement and action than is consistent 
 with all the laws, attributes, and circumstances 
 of both soul and body, as stated in rule fourteenth. 
 
 6. It does not imply than any organ or faculty 
 is to be at all times exerted to its full strength. 
 This would soon exhaust ::nd destroy any and 
 every organ of the body. Whatever may be true 
 of the mind when separated from the body, it is 
 certain, while it acts through a material* organ, 
 that a constant state of excitement is impossible. 
 \Vhen the mind is strongly excited, there is of 
 necessity, a great determination of blood to the 
 brain. A high degree of excitement cannot long 
 continue, certainly, without producing inflamma- 
 tion of the brain, and consequent insanity. And 
 the law of God does not require any degree of 
 emotion, or mental excitement, that is inconsist- 
 ent with life and health. Our Lord Jesus Christ 
 
nr^ 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 I. 
 
 " ii 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 does not appear to have been in a state of contin- 
 ual excitement. When He and H's disciples had 
 been in a great excitement, for a time, they would 
 turn aside, " and rest awhile." 
 
 Who, that has ever philosophized on this sub- 
 ject, does not know that the high degree of ex- 
 citement which is sometimes witnessed in revi- 
 vals of religion, must necessarily be short, or that 
 the people must become deranged. It seems 
 sometimes to be indispensable that a high degree 
 of excitement should prevail for a time, to arrest 
 public and individual attention , and to draw people 
 off from other pursuits to attend to the concerns 
 of their souls. But if any suppose that this high 
 degree of excitement is either necessary, or de- 
 sirable, or possible to be long continued, they 
 have not well considered the matter. And here 
 is one grand mistake ol the Church. They have 
 supposed that the revival consists mostly in this 
 state of excited emotion, rather than in conformi- 
 ty of the human will to the will of God. Hence, 
 when the reasons for much excitement have ceas- 
 ed, and the public mind begins to grow more 
 calm, they begin immediately to say that the re- 
 vival is on the decline ; when, in fact, with much 
 less excited emotion, there may be vastly more 
 real religion in the community. 
 
 Excitement is often important and indispensa- 
 ble. But the vigorous actings of the will are in- 
 finitely more important. And this state of mind 
 may exist in the absence of highly excited emo- 
 tions. 
 
 7. Nor does it imply that the same degree of 
 emotion, volition, or intellectual effort, is at all 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 27 
 
 times required. All volitions do not need the 
 same strength. They cannot have equal strength, 
 because they are not produced by equally power- 
 ful reasons. Should a man put forth as strong a 
 volition to pick up an apple, as to extinguish the 
 flames of a burning house ? Should a mother, 
 watching over her sleeping nursling, when all is 
 quiet and secure, put forth as powerful volitions, 
 as might be required to snatch it from the devour- 
 ing flames ? Now, suppose that she was equally 
 devoted to God, in watching her sleeping babe, 
 and in rescuing it from the jaws of death. Her 
 holiness would not consist in the fact that she ex- 
 ercised equally strong volitions in both cases ; but, 
 that in both cases, the volition was equal to the 
 accomplishment of the thing required to be done. 
 So that persons may be entirely holy, and yet 
 continually varying in the strength of their af- 
 fections, according to their circumstances — the 
 state of their physical system — and the business 
 in which they are engaged. 
 
 All the powers of body and mind are to be held 
 at the service and disposal of God. Just so much 
 of physical, intellectual, and moral energy are to 
 be expended in the performance of dut}^ as the 
 nature and the circumstances of the case require. 
 And nothing is farther from the truth, than that 
 the law of God requires a constant, intense state 
 of emotion and mental action on any and every 
 subject alike. 
 
 8. Entire sanctification does not imply, as I 
 have said, that God is to be at all times the direct 
 object of attention and affection. This is not only 
 impossible in the nature of the case, but would 
 
 i 
 
 mma 
 
I 
 
 III 
 
 '«!! 
 
 • ■ m 
 
 28 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 render it impossible for us to think of, or love our 
 neighbor or ourselves : Rule g. 
 
 Upon this subject I have formerly used the 
 following language : The law of God requires 
 the supreme love of the heart. By this is meant, 
 that the mind's supreme preference should be of 
 God — that God should be the great object of its 
 supreme love and delight. But this state of mind 
 is perfectly consistent with our engaging in any 
 of the necessary business of life — giving to that 
 business that attention — and exercising about it 
 all those affections and emotions which its nature 
 and importance demand. 
 
 If a man love God supremely, and engage in 
 any business for the promotion of His glory, if 
 his eye be single, his affections and conduct are 
 entirely holy, when necessarily engaged in the 
 right transaction of his business, although for the 
 time being, neither his thoughts, or affection, are 
 upon God. 
 
 Just as a man who is supremely devoted to his 
 %mily may be acting consistently with his su- 
 preme affection, and rendering them the most im- 
 portant and perfect service, while he does not 
 think of them at all. As I have endeavored to 
 show in my sermon on the text, "Make to your- 
 selves a new heart, and a new spirit," I consider 
 the moral heart to be the mind's supreme prefer- 
 ence. As I there stated, the natural, or fleshy 
 heart is the seat of animal life, and propels the 
 blood through all the physical system. Now 
 there is a striking analogy between this and the 
 moral heart. And the analogy consists in this, 
 that as the natural heart, by its pulsations, diffu- 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 29 
 
 his 
 su- 
 
 ses life through the physical system; so the 
 moral heart, or the supreme governing preference 
 of the mind, is that which gives life and character 
 to man's moral actions. E. g., suppose that I am 
 engaged in teaching mathematics, and that the 
 supreme desire of my mind is to glorify God in 
 this particular calling. Now in demonstrating 
 some of its intricate propositions, 1 am obliged, 
 for hours together, to give the entire attention of 
 my mind to that object. Now, while my mind 
 is thus intensely employed in this particular 
 business, it is impossible that I should have any 
 thoughts directly about God, or should exercise 
 any direct affections, or emotions, or volitions 
 towards Him. Yet if, in this particular calling, 
 all selfishness is excluded, and my supreme 
 design is to glorify God, my mind is in a sancti- 
 fied state, even though, for the time being, I do 
 not think of God. 
 
 It should be understood that while the supreme 
 preference of the mind has such efficiency as to 
 exclude all selfishness, and to call forth just that 
 strength of volition, thought, affection, and 
 emotfon, that is requisite to the right discharge 
 of any duty to which the mind may be called, 
 the heart is in a sanctified state. By a suitable 
 degree of thought and feeling, to the right dis- 
 charge of duty, I mean just that intensity of 
 thought, and energy of action, that the nature 
 and importance of the particular duty to which 
 for the time bemg I am called, demand. 
 
 In this statemient, I take it for granted, that 
 the brain, together with all the circumstances of 
 the constitution, is such, that the requisite 
 
3^ 
 
 VIEWS Ol" 
 
 amount of thought, feeling, &c., is possible. If 
 the physical constitution be in such a state of 
 exhaustion as to be unable to put forth that 
 amount of exertion which the nature of the 
 subject might otherwise demand, even in this 
 case, the languid efforts, though far below the 
 importance of the subject, would be all that the 
 law of God requires. Whoever, therefore, sup- 
 poses that a state of entire sanctihcatibn implies 
 a state of entire abstraction of mind from every 
 thing but God, labors under a grievous mistake. 
 Such a state of mind is as inconsistent with duty, 
 as it is impossible while we are in the iiesh. 
 
 The fact is that the language and spirit of the 
 law have been and generally are grossly misun- 
 derstood, and interpreted to mean what they 
 never did, or can mean consistently with natural 
 justice. Many a mind has been thrown open to 
 the assaults of Satan, and kept in a state of 
 continual bondage and condemnation, because 
 God was not, at all times, the direct object of 
 thought, affection, and emotion ; and because 
 the mind was not kept in a state of most perfect 
 tension, and excited to the utmost at every mo- 
 ment. 
 
 g. Nor does it imply a state of continual calm- 
 ness of mind. Christ was not in a state of con- 
 tinual calmness. The deep peace of his mind 
 was never broken up, but the surface or emotions 
 of his mind were often in a state of great excite- 
 ment, and at other times in a state of great calm- 
 ness. And here let me refer to Christ, as we 
 have His history in the Bible, in illustration of 
 th.e positions I have already taken. Christ had 
 
t;AS:r'rirlr ATioM. 
 
 3t 
 
 all the constitutional api)etites and susce])tihil- 
 ities of human nature. Had it been otherwise, 
 lie could not have been " temy)ted in all points 
 like as we are;" nor could He have been tempted 
 in any ])oint as we are, any further than He pos- 
 sessed a constitution similar to our own. Christ 
 also manifested natural affection for His mother, 
 and for other friends. He showed that He had a 
 sense of injury and injustice, and exercised a 
 suitable resentment when He was injured and per- 
 secuted. He was not always in a state of great 
 excitement. He appears to have had His seasons 
 of excitement and of calm, — of labor and rest, — 
 of joy and sorrow^ like other good men. Some 
 persons have spoken of entire sanctification as 
 implying a state of uniform and imiversal calm- 
 ness, and as if every kind and degree of excited 
 feeling, except as the feelings of love to God are 
 excited, were inconsistent with this state. But 
 Christ often manife^sted a'^reat degree of excite- 
 ment when reproving the enemies of God. In 
 short, His history w^ould lead to the conclusion 
 that His calmness and excitement were various, 
 according to the circumstances of the case. And 
 although He was sometimes so pointed and se- 
 vere in His reproof, as to be accused of being 
 possessed of a devil, yet His emotions and feel- 
 ings w^ere only those that were called for and 
 suited to the occasions. 
 
 10. Nor does it imply a state of continual sweet- 
 ness of mind without any indignation or holy 
 anger at sin or sinners. Anger at sin is only a 
 modification of love. A feeling of justice, or a 
 desire to have the wicked punished for the benefit 
 
32 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 i 
 
 of the ^foverrinient, is only another of the modifi- 
 cations of love. And sncli feelings are essential 
 to the existence of love, where the circumstances 
 call for their exercise. It is said of Christ that 
 He was angry. He often manifested anger and 
 lioly indignation. " God is angry with the 
 wicked every day." And holiness, or a state of 
 sanctification, instead of being inconsistent with, 
 always implies the existence of anger, whenever 
 circumstances occur, which demand its exercise : 
 Rule lo. 
 
 11. It does not imply a state of mind that is all 
 compassion, and no feeling of justice. Compassion 
 is only one of the modifications of love. Justice, 
 or a desire for the execution of law, and the 
 punishment of sin is another of its modifications. 
 God, and Christ, and all holy beings, exercise all 
 those affections and emotions that constitute the 
 different modifications of love, under every possible 
 circumstance. 
 
 12. It does not imply that we should love or 
 hate all men alike, irrespective of their valae, 
 circumstances and relations. One being may 
 have a greater capacity for happiness, and be of 
 much more importance to the universe than 
 another. Impartiality and the law of love re- 
 quire us not to regard all beings and things alike ; 
 but all beings and things according to their 
 nature, relations and circumstances. 
 
 13. Nor does it imply a perfect knowledge of 
 all our relations : Rule 7. Now" such an inter- 
 pretation of the law, as would make it necessary, 
 in order to yield obedience, for us to understand 
 all our relations, would imply in us the possession 
 
SANCTlFICAriON, 
 
 33 
 
 of the attribute of omniscience ; for certainty 
 tliere is not a thinj^^ in the universe to which we 
 do not sustain some relation. And a knowledge 
 of all these relations, plainly implies infinite know- 
 ledge. It is plain that the law of God cannot 
 require any such thing as this ; and that entire 
 sanctification or entire obedience to the law of 
 God therefore implies no such thing. 
 
 14. Nor does it imply perfect knowledge on 
 any subject. Perfect knowledge on any subject, 
 implies a perfect knowledge of its nature, rela- 
 tions, bearings, and tendencies. Now as every 
 single thing in the universe, sustains some rela- 
 tion to, and has some bearing upon every other 
 thing, there can be no such thing as perfect 
 knowledge on any one subjecf, that does not em- 
 brace universal or infinite knowledge. 
 
 15. Nor does it imply freedom from mistake 
 on any subject whatever. It is maintained by 
 some that the grace of the gospel pledges to 
 every man perfect knowledge, or at least such 
 knowledge as to exempt him from any mistake. 
 I cannot stop here to debate this question, but 
 would merely say the law does not expressly or 
 impliedly require infallibility of judgment in us. 
 It only requires us to make the best use of all 
 the light we have. 
 
 16. Nor does entire sanctification imply the 
 knowledge of the exact relative value of differ- 
 ent interests. I have already said, in illustrating 
 Rule 7, that the second commandment, **Thou 
 shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," does not im- 
 ply that we should, in every instance, understand 
 exactly the relative value and importance of every 
 
 11 = 
 
 esme^snmmmf 
 
4 
 
 it 
 
 , I 
 
 34 
 
 VIKWS OF 
 
 interest. This plainly cannot be required, unless 
 it be assumed that we are omniscient. 
 
 17. It does not imply the same degree of 
 knowledge that we might have possessed, had 
 we always improved our time in its acquisition. 
 The law cannot require us to love God or man 
 as well as we might have been able to love them, 
 had we always improved all our time in obtain- 
 ing all the knowledge we could, in regard to 
 their nature, character, and interests. If this 
 were implied in the requisition of the law, there 
 is not a saint on earth or m heaven that is or ever 
 can be perfect. What is lost in this respect is 
 lost, and past neglect can never be so atoned for 
 as that we shall ever be able to make up in our 
 acquisitions of kn4)wledge, what we have lost. 
 It will no doubt be true to all eternity, that we 
 shall have less knowledge than we might have 
 possessed, had we filled up all our time in its ac- 
 quisition. We do not, cannot, nor shall we ever 
 be able to love God as well as we might have 
 loved him, had we always Applied our minds to 
 the acquisition of knowledge respecting him. 
 And if entire sanctification is to be understood as 
 implying that we love God as much as we should, 
 had we all the knowledge we might have had, 
 then I repeat it, there is not a saint on earth or in 
 heaven, nor ever will be, that is entirely sancti- 
 fied. 
 
 18. It does not imply the same amount of ser- 
 vice that we might have rendered, had we never 
 sinned. The law of God does not imply or sup- 
 pose that our powers are in a perfect state ; that 
 our strength of body or mind is what it would 
 
 M 
 
SANrTn-ir\TH»\. 
 
 35 
 
 , unless 
 
 ^ree 
 
 of 
 id, had 
 lisition. 
 or man 
 e them, 
 obtain- 
 ^ard to 
 If this 
 V, there 
 or ever 
 ipect is 
 ►ned for 
 ) in our 
 ve lost, 
 hat we 
 It have 
 its ac- 
 ^^e ever 
 It have 
 inds to 
 g him. 
 tood as 
 should, 
 ^e had, 
 :h or in 
 sancti- 
 
 of ser- 
 2 never 
 or sup- 
 ;; that 
 
 would 
 
 -1 
 
 1 
 
 have been, had we never sinned. But it simply 
 requires us to use what strength we have. The 
 very wcrding of the law is proof conclusive, that 
 it extends its demands only to the full amount of 
 what strength we have. And this is true of every 
 moral being, however great or small. 
 
 19. It does not recpiire the same degree of love 
 that we might have rendered, but for our igno- 
 rance. We certainly know much less of Ood, 
 and therefore are much less capable of loving 
 him, i. e. we are capable of loving him with a 
 less amount, and to a less degree, than if we knew 
 more of him, which we might have done but for 
 our sins. And as I have before said, this will 
 be tnie to all eternity; for we can never make 
 amends by any future obedience or diligence, for 
 this any more than for other sins. And to all 
 eternity, it will remain true, that we know less 
 of God, and love him less than we might and 
 should have done, had we always done our duty. 
 If entire sanctification therefore, implies the same 
 degree of love or service that might have been 
 rendered, had we always developed our powers 
 by a perfect use of them, then there is not a saint 
 on earth or in heaven that is or ever will be in 
 that state. The most perfect development and 
 improvement of our powers, must depend upon 
 the most perfect use of them. And every depar- 
 ture from their perfect use, is a diminishing of 
 their highest development, and a curtailing of 
 their capabilities to serve God in the highest and 
 best manner. All sin then does just so much 
 towards crippling and curtailing the powers of 
 body and mind, and rendering them, by just so 
 
. 1 
 
 !r 
 
 1 > 
 
 i - 
 
 3^> 
 
 VU'WS OF 
 
 much, inrapable of pcMloriniiifij the service tliey 
 ini^lit otherwise have reiidered. 
 
 'lo this view of" the subject it has been objected 
 that ('hrist taught an opposite doctrine, in the 
 case ot the woman who washed his feet with her 
 tears, when he said, "To whom much is forgiven, 
 the same loveth much." But can it be that 
 (Christ intended to be understood as teaching, that 
 the more we sin the greater will be our love and 
 our ultimate virtue? If this be so I do not see 
 why it does not follow that the more sin in this 
 life, the better, if so be that we are forgiven. If 
 our virtue is really to be improved by our sins, I 
 see not why it would not be good economy both 
 for God and man, to sin as much as we can 
 while in this world. Certainly Christ meant to 
 lay down no such principle as this. He undoubt- 
 edly meant to teach, that a person who was truly 
 sensible of the greatness of his sins, would exer- 
 cise more of the love of gratitude j than would 
 be exercised by one who had a less affecting sense 
 of ill-desert. 
 
 20. Entire sanctification does not imply the 
 same degree of faith that might have been exer- 
 cised but for our ignorance and past sin. 
 
 We cannot believe any thing about God of 
 which we have no evidence or kn(?wledge. Our 
 faith must therefore be limited by our intellectual 
 perceptions of truth. The heathen are not under 
 obligation to believe in Christ, and thousands of 
 other things of which they have no knowledge. 
 Perfection in a heathen would imply much less 
 faith than in a Christian. Perfection in an adult 
 would imply much more and greater faith than 
 
SANC riFlCAllON. 
 
 37 
 
 ce they 
 
 ibjected 
 in the 
 /ith her 
 )rgiven, 
 )G that 
 iig, that 
 've and 
 not see 
 in this 
 en. If 
 • sins, I 
 ly both 
 we can 
 eant to 
 uloubt- 
 LS truly 
 d exer- 
 would 
 ^ sense 
 
 ly the 
 |i exer- 
 
 od of 
 Our 
 ectuai 
 under 
 nds of 
 ledge, 
 h less 
 adult 
 I than 
 
 in an infant. And jxiitcction in iu\ angel would 
 imply much greater faith than in a man, just in 
 proportion as he knows more of God tiian man. 
 Let it be always understood that entire sanctilica- 
 tion never implies that which is naturally impos- 
 
 bl( 
 
 SIDU 
 
 It 
 
 lly 
 
 IS certainly naturally impossn)Je tor us 
 
 ible f( 
 
 to bohe\e that ot which we have no knowledge. 
 Kntirc sanctification implies in this respect noth- 
 ing more than the hearts faith or confidence in 
 all the truth that is perceived by the intellect. 
 
 21. Nor does it im})ly the conversion of all 
 men in answer to our prayers. It lias been main- 
 tained by scjine that a state of entire sanctifica- 
 tion implies the offering of prevailing prayer for 
 the conversion of all men. To this I reply : 
 
 (I.) Then Christ was not sanctiliecl; for he 
 offered no such prayer. 
 
 (2.) The law of God makes no such demand 
 either expressly or impliedly. 
 
 (3.) We have no right to believe that all men 
 will be converted in answer to our })rayers, un- 
 less we have an express promise to that effect. 
 
 (4.) As therefore there is no such promise, we 
 are under no obligation to (jffer such prayer. 
 Nor does the non-conversion of the world, imply 
 that there are no sanctiiied saints in the world. 
 
 22. It does not imply the conversion of any 
 one for whom there is not an express or implied 
 promise in the word of God. The fact that 
 Christ did not pray in faith for the conversion of 
 Judas, and that Judas w.'».s not converted in an- 
 swer to his prayers, does not prove that Christ 
 was not in a state of entire sanctification. 
 
 23. Nor does it imply that all those things 
 which are expressly or impliedly promised, will 
 
 h 
 
 1 .'I] 
 ii ii 
 
3« 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 I- 
 
 l' 
 
 be granted in answer to our prayers, or in other 
 words, that we should pray in faith for them, if 
 we are ignorant of the existence or appHcation of 
 those promises. A state of perfect love implies 
 the discharge of all known duty. And nothing 
 strictly speaking can be duty of which the mind 
 has no knowledge. It cannot therefore be our 
 duty to believe a promise of which we are entire- 
 ly ignorant, or the application of which to any 
 specific object we do not understand. 
 
 If there is sin in such a case as this, it lies in 
 the ignorance itself. And here no doubt, there 
 often is sin, because there is present neglect 
 to know the truth. But it should always be 
 understood that the sin lies in the ignorance, and 
 not in the neglect of that of which we have no 
 knowledge. A state of sanctification is inconsis- 
 tent with any present neglect to know the truth ; 
 for such neglect is sin. But it is not inconsistent 
 with our failing to do that of which we have no 
 knowledge. James says: ''He that knoweth to 
 do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin." " If 
 ye were blind," says Christ, "ye should have 
 no sin, br.t because ye say we see, therefore your 
 sin ren:iaineth." 
 
 24. Entire sanctification does not imply the 
 impossibility of future sin. Entire and permanent 
 sanctification does imply the fact, that the sancti- 
 fied soul will not sin. But the only reason why 
 he will not, is to be ascribed entirely to the 
 sovereign grace of God. Sanctification does not 
 imply, as I have already said, any such change 
 in the nat^) :e of the subject, as to render it impos- 
 sible or i.nprobable that he will again sin. Nay, 
 
SANCTlFlCATiON. 
 
 39 
 
 if 
 
 I do not suppose there is a man upon earth, or 
 perhaps in heaven, who would not fall into ^in 
 but for the supporting grace of God. -^ 
 
 25. It does not imply that watchfulness, and 
 prayer, and effort, are no longer needed. It is 
 the height of absurdity to suppose that, either in 
 this or any other state of being, there will be no 
 faith called for, or watchfulness against tempta- 
 tion. Just so long as the susceptibilities of our 
 soul exist, temptation in some sense and to some 
 extent must exist, in whatever world we are. 
 Christ manifestly struggled hard with temptation. 
 He found wa< chfulness, and the most powerful 
 opposition to temptation, indispensable to his per- 
 severance in holiness. " Is the servant above 
 his master, or the disciple above his Lord ?" 
 
 26. Nor does it imply that we are no longer 
 dependent on the grace of Christ, but the exact 
 opposite is implied. A state of entire and per- 
 manent sanctilication implies the most constant 
 and perfect reliance upon the grace and strength 
 of an indwelling Christ. It seems to have been 
 supposed by some that entire sanctification im- 
 plies that something has been done which has 
 so changed the nature of the sanctified soul, 
 that ever after he will persevere in holiness in 
 his own strength. I suppose this to be as far as 
 possible from the truth, and that no change 
 whatever has occurred in the nature of the 
 individual, but simply that he has learned to 
 confide in Christ at every step. He has so re- 
 ceived Christ's strength as to lean constantly 
 upon his supporting grace. 
 
 27. Nor does it imply that the Christian war- 
 
 I" 
 
 US 
 
H,> 
 
 40 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 . i 
 
 li 
 
 
 i I 
 
 1 ; 1 
 
 j 
 
 ; 'I 
 
 
 ,; 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 ii ■ 
 
 1 ' 
 
 fare is ended. I understand the Christian war- 
 fare to consist in the mind's conflict with tempta- 
 tion. This certainly will never end in this life. 
 
 28. Nor does it imply that there is no more 
 growth in grace. Many persons seem to under- 
 stand the command "Grow in grace," as imply- 
 ing the gradual giving up of sin. They suppose 
 that when persons have done smning, there is no 
 more room for growth in grace. Now it is said 
 of Christ that he grew in grace, where the same 
 original word is used as in the command. "He 
 increased in stature, and in wisdom, and in favor 
 {chat'iti grace) with God and man." If growth 
 in grace implies the gradual giving up of sin, 
 then God has commanded men not to give up 
 their sins at once. They must give them up 
 gradually. The truth is that growth in grace 
 implies the relinquishment of sin to begin with. 
 To grow in grace is to grow in the favor of God. 
 And what would the Apostle have said, had he 
 supposed that the requirement to grow in grace, 
 would have been understood by an orthodox 
 Church to require only the gradual relinquish- 
 ment of their sins ? I suppose that saints will 
 continue to grow in grace to all eternity, and in 
 the knowledge of God. But this does not imply 
 that they are not entirely holy, when they enter 
 heaven, or before. 
 
 29. Nor does it imply that others will recog- 
 nize it to be real sanctification. With the present 
 views of the church in regard to what is implied 
 in entire sanctification, it is impossible that a 
 really sanctified soul should be acknowledged 
 by the Church as such. And with these views 
 
 I 
 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 41 
 
 of the Church, there is no doubt but sanctified 
 beHevers would be set at naught, and denounced 
 by the great mass of Christians as possessing any 
 other than a sanctified spirit. 
 
 It was insisted, and positively beheved by the 
 Jews, that Jesus Christ was possessed of a wick- 
 ed, instead of a holy spirit. Such were their no- 
 tions of holiness, that they no doubt supposed 
 him to be actuated by any other than the Spirit 
 of God. They especially supposed so on ac- 
 count of his opposition to the current orthodoxy, 
 and the ungodliness of the religious teachers of 
 the day. Now, who'does not see that when the 
 Cimrch is in a great measure conformed to the 
 world, that a spirit of lioliness ^.n any man would 
 certainly lead him to aim the sharpest rebukes at 
 the spirit and life of those in this state, whether 
 in high or low places. And who does not see 
 that this would naturally result in his being ac- 
 cused of possessing a wicked spirit ? 
 
 The most violent opposition that I have ever 
 seen manifested to any persons in my life, has 
 been manifested by members of the Church, and 
 even by some ministers of the gospel, towards 
 those who 1 believe were among the most holy 
 persons I ever knew. I have been shocked, and 
 wounded beyond expression, at the almost fiend- 
 ish opposition to such persons, that I have wit- 
 nessed. 
 
 I have several times of late observed that wri- 
 ters in newspapers were calling for examples of 
 Christian Perfection or entire sanctification. Now 
 I would humbly inquire, of what use it is to 
 point the Church to examples so long as they do 
 
42 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 not know what is, and what is not implied in a 
 state of entire sanctification ? I would ask, are 
 the Church agreed among themselves in regard 
 to what constitutes this state ? Are any consid- 
 erable number of ministers agreed among them- 
 selves as to what is implied in a state of entire 
 sanctification ? Does not every body know that 
 the Church and the ministry are in a great meas- 
 ure in the dark upon this subject ? Why then 
 call for examples? No man can profess to have 
 attained this state without being sure to be set at 
 naught as a hypocrite, and a self-deceiver. 
 
 30. It is not implied in this state that the sanc- 
 tified soul will himself, always and at all times, 
 be sure that his feelings and conduct are perfectly 
 right. Cases may occur in which he may be in 
 doubt in regard to the rule of duty ; and be at a 
 loss, without examination, reflection, and prayer, 
 to know whether in a particular case he has done 
 and felt exactly right. If he were sure that he 
 understood the exact application of the law of 
 God to that particular case, his consciousness 
 would invariably inform him whether or not he 
 was conformed to that rule. But in any and every 
 case where he has not a clear apprehension of 
 the rule, it may require time and. thought, and 
 prayer, and diligent inquiry to satisfy his mind 
 in regard to the exact moral quality of any par- 
 ticular act or state of feeling ; for example, a man 
 may feel himself exercised with strong indigna- 
 tion in view of sin. And he may be brought 
 into doubt whether the indignation, in kind or 
 degree, was not sinful. It may therefore require 
 self-examination and deep searching of heart to 
 
 MMi 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 43 
 
 to 
 
 decide this question. That all indignation is not 
 sinful is certain. And that a certain kind and de- 
 gree of indignation at sin is a duty, is also cer- 
 tain. But our most holy exercises may lay us 
 open to^the assaults of Satan. And he may so 
 turn our accuser as for a time to render it difficult 
 for us to decide in regard to the real state of our 
 hearts. And thus a sanctified soul may be *' in 
 heaviness through manifold temptations." 
 
 31. Nor does it imply the same strength of holy 
 affection that Adam may have exercised before 
 he fell, and his powers were debilitated by sin. 
 It should never be forgotten that the mind in this 
 state of existence, is wholly dependent upon the 
 brain and physical system for its development. 
 In Adam, and in any of his posteritj^ any viola- 
 tion of the physical laws of the body, resulting 
 in the debility and imperfection of any organ or 
 system of organs, must necessarily impair the 
 vigor of the mind, and prevent its developing it- 
 self as it otherwise might have done. It is there- 
 fore entirely erroneous to say that mankind are 
 or can be, in this state of existence, perfect in as 
 high a sense as they might have been had sin 
 never entered the world, and had there been no 
 such thing as a violation of the laws of the physi- 
 cal constitution. The law of God requires only 
 the entire consecration of such powers as we 
 have. As these powers improve, our obligation 
 is enlarged, and will continue to be to all eternity. 
 For myself, I have very little doubt that the human 
 constitution is capable of being very nearly, if 
 not entirely renovated or recovered from the 
 evils of intemperance, by a right understanding 
 
 m 
 
 M 
 
 ! ii: 
 
 ■11 
 ■•■il 
 
h 
 
 44 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 f i£r 
 
 
 of, and an adherence to the laws of life and health. 
 So that aiter a few generations the human body 
 would be nearly if not entirely restored to its 
 primitive physical perfection. If this is so, the 
 time may come when obedience to the law of 
 God, will imply as great a strength and constancy 
 of affection as Adam was capable of exercising 
 before the fall. But if on the other hand, it be 
 true that any injury of the physical constitution 
 can never by wholly repaired — that the evils of 
 intemperance in respect to its effect upon the 
 body, are, in some measure at least, to descend 
 with men to the end of time, then no such thing 
 is implied in a state of entire sanctification, as 
 the same strength and permanency of holy affec- 
 tion in us that Adam might have exercised before 
 the fall. 
 
 To this it is objected, that the Son of God re- 
 quires of us now, all that strength and perfection 
 of service which we might have rendered, had 
 we never sinned. It is said that, although man 
 has, by his own, or by Adam's act, lost the power 
 or ability to render the same degree of service 
 which he might have rendered had he never sin- 
 ned, yet God's right to require this now impos- 
 sible service, is not eff cted by this inabilit}' — 
 that although man has rendered himself unable 
 to do all that he might have done but for his sin, 
 yet God has not lost the right to require this ser- 
 vice, notwithstanding this inability. If this is not 
 so, it is said that if man were utterly to annihila te 
 his ability, his obligation would cease. So that 
 a man by sinning, might annihilate his obligation 
 to obedience. To this I reply : 
 
 Had this objection come from that class 
 
 I 
 
 i3r 
 
SANCTIFICATIUN. 
 
 45 
 
 of divines who deny the natural abihty of men 
 to obey the law of God, and who maintain that 
 no ability whatever is implied in obligation, it 
 had not been so surprising. But coming as it 
 does from those who maintain the natural ability 
 ofmen to comply with all the requirements of God, 
 and that natural ability is indispensable to obliga- 
 tion, and who hold the attainableness of entire 
 sanctification on the ground of natural ability, this 
 objection is truly wonderful. What consistency, 
 I beg leave to ask, is there in maintaining the 
 natural ability of sinners to do their whole duty, 
 and the instantaneous attainableness of a state 
 of entire sanctification on the ground of natural 
 ability, and at the same time, asserting that 
 although man has lost the power to render that 
 degree of service to God which he might have 
 rendered but for sin, yet the law holds him 
 bound to render all that service, notwithstanding. 
 Now what is this but both affirming and denying 
 natural ability at the same breath ? It cannot 
 be pretended with the least shadow of truth, 
 that man is able to render to God, as high and 
 perfect a service at the present time, as if he 
 had never sinned — as if he had never neglected 
 to know all that might be known of God — as if 
 he had fully developed his powers by universal 
 and perfect obedience. And if he is under obli- 
 gation to do so, notwithstanding this inability, 
 then to maintain the doctrine of natural ability, 
 or that men are naturally able to comply with all 
 the requirements of God, is absurd and a contra- 
 diction. For certainly man is naturally able to 
 do that only which, under the circumstances, is 
 
46 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 
 \- 
 
 possible. And nothing is possible to him which 
 he cannot accomplish by willing and honestly 
 endeavoring to do it. But who will maintain, 
 that, by willing, a drunkard can so restore his 
 shattered constitution, as in a moment to have all 
 those bodily energies, upon which the mind is 
 naturally dependent, restored to perfect health, 
 so as to render it possible for him to exercise the 
 same degree of mental vigor that he might have 
 exercised, but for his intemperance. Or who 
 will say that by willing, he can instantaneously 
 possess himself of all that degree of knowledge 
 of God, and of divine things which he might 
 have had, but for his past neglect. Who will 
 say, that by willing, he can instantaneously put 
 forth as fresh, and vigorous, and powerful, and 
 constant exercise of holy aftection^, as if his 
 powers had been fully developed b)' universal, 
 and perfect obedience, ever since he has had a 
 being? Certainly no man will take it upon him 
 to affirm this. Then, as a matter of fact, man is 
 unable to render to God what he might have done 
 but for his past sin. 
 
 And now the inquiry is, is he under obligation 
 to render the same service in degree as if his 
 powers were in that state of perfection in which 
 they would have been, had he never sinned ? 
 That this question should be answered in the 
 affirmative, by those who maintain the natural 
 ability of sinners, perfectly to obey God, is pass- 
 ing strange. 
 
 But it seems, they feel themselves called upon 
 to take this ground, to escape the necessity of 
 adopting what they conceive to be a wholly un- 
 
SA\rTli-ir\TinN-, 
 
 •I 
 
 i 
 
 tenable position, viz., that if a man's impairinpj 
 his abiHty, does commensurately annihilate obli- 
 gation, then it follows, that should he utterly 
 destroy his ability to obey, his ability to sin would 
 cease. But here let me inquire, if this is not 
 really the fact. Cases often occur, in which men 
 destroy, for the time being, their own moral 
 agency, by rendering themselves insane ? Now 
 is it not universally admitted that a person in a 
 state of mental derangement, is as incapable of 
 moral action as a brute ? Is a man in a state of 
 insanity, a moral agent ? I answer, no. Can 
 he sin ? No. Was it ever maintained by any 
 moralist, that he could ? No. Nor does it mat- 
 ter, by what means he became deranged, if so 
 be that his insanity is real. It is true that courts 
 of law hold insane persons, under certain cir- 
 cumstances, as civilly amenable for their conduct. 
 When, for example, a man commits a crime in a 
 fit of intoxication, although at the time, it should 
 be manifest that he was deranged, yet they 
 will punish him for the deed, as if he had com- 
 mitted it in the sober exercise of his reason. 
 But the principle upon which they proceed in 
 this case, is that that act, by which he became 
 insane, viz., his becoming drunk, involves the 
 guilt of the crime which was committed during 
 the fit of intoxication. Not that courts of law 
 ever maintain, that, in such cases, the criminal 
 was a moral agent at the time of his insanity. 
 But they hold him civilly responsible for his con- 
 duct, or rather punish him for drinking himself 
 drunk. This they consider as the real thing 
 in which his criminality consists, although in 
 
 n 
 
 ^\ 
 
4« 
 
 VIF.WS OI" 
 
 •i. 
 
 I 
 
 form he is condemned for the crime of wliich it 
 was the cause. 
 
 Now just so in the case of sinners under the 
 government of God, when by their own act, they 
 abridge their capabiHty to render to God, as high 
 and perfect a service as they might have" done, 
 their sin lies in that act which abridged their 
 ability. This act involves in it the whole guilt 
 of all the default of which it is the cause. Hut 
 their guilt does not lie at all in their neglect to 
 do what, after this inability has occurred, they are 
 utterly unable to do. When their powers of 
 moral agency are either destroyed or impaired, 
 by Adam's act — by their parents' act — or by their 
 own act, they are not, and cannot, by any possi- 
 bility, be under any obligation to use powers 
 which they do not possess. And God has no 
 right to require it of them. But he has a right 
 to hold them responsible, and punish them to all 
 eternity for the act, or neglect that impaired or 
 annihilated their ability. And except they repent 
 and are forgiven, for this abuse of their constitu- 
 tion, it is certain that he will punish them for- 
 ever. 
 
 Now this view of the subject is not at all akin 
 to that which sets aside the claims of the law, by 
 introducing, through Christ, another rule of duty, 
 less opposed to the sinful inclinations of man, 
 than is the law of God. This sentiment, my 
 soul abhors. The law of God, no doubt is, and 
 always must remain the only rule of duty to 
 moral agents, in whatever world, or under what- 
 ever circumstances they may exist. 
 
 But the question which we are all along debating 
 
SANc rii'iCA rioN'. 
 
 40 
 
 it 
 
 ng 
 
 is, does the law of God lev^el its claims to the exact 
 measure of the natural ability of every moral 
 agent? — does it come to him as he is, and re- 
 quire the perfect use of his faculties as they are, 
 in his service ? — or does it require him to possess 
 other faculties, and to possess them in a different 
 state from what they really are ? This would be 
 plainly to require impossibilities. God might 
 as well command a man to undo all his sins 
 instead of repenting of them — to recall past time, 
 now to perform those duties to those sinners who 
 have long been dead, which might and ought to 
 have been performed while they were living. 
 Could God justly require this ? I answer : No, 
 no more than he could require a dead corpse to 
 raise itself from the dead. To perform that 
 which is naturally impossible, God never re- 
 quires. To affirm that he does, is a slander, and 
 a libel upon his character. When a sin has been 
 committed, a duty neglected, and the opportunity 
 and possibility of now performing it, has ceased, 
 the only requirement in respect to that is, that 
 we repent. And he no longer possesses the right 
 to require of us the performance of that which 
 has become naturally impossible, nor does he in 
 any instance claim or attempt tr exercise any 
 such authority as this. 
 
 32. Nor does it imply the formation of such 
 holy habits as shall secure obedience. Some 
 have said that it was absurd to profess a state of 
 entire sanctification, on the ground that it implies 
 not only obedience to the law of God, but such 
 a formation and perfection of holy habits as to 
 render it certain that we shall never again sin. 
 
 't 1 
 
 lb 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 
s 
 
 50 
 
 VIKWS ()K 
 
 And that a man can no more tell when he is en- 
 tirely sanctified, than he can tell how many holy 
 acts it will take to form holy habits ot such 
 strength that he will never again sin. To this I 
 answer: 
 
 (I.) The law of God has nothing to do with 
 requiring this formation of holy habits. It is 
 satisfied with present obedience. It only de- 
 mands at the present moment the full devotion of 
 all our powers to God. It never in any instance, 
 complains that we have not formed such holy 
 habits as to render it certain that we shall sin no 
 more. 
 
 (2.) If it be true that a man is never wholly 
 sanct'fied, until his holy habits are so fixed as to 
 render it certain that he will never sin again, then 
 Adam was not in a state of entire sanctification 
 previously to the fall, nor were the angels in 
 this state before their, fall. 
 
 (3,) If this sentiment be true, there is qpt a 
 saint nor an angel in heaven so far as we can 
 know, that can with the least propriety profess 
 entire sanctification ; for how do they know that 
 they have performed so many holy acts as to 
 have created such habits of holiness, as to render 
 it certain that they will never sin ? 
 
 (4.) Entire sanctification does not consist in 
 the formation of holy habits, nor at all depend 
 upon this. Both entire and permanent sanctifi- 
 cation are based alone upon the grace of God in 
 Jesus Christ. And perseverance in holiness is 
 to be ascribed alone to the influence of the in- 
 dwelling Spirit of Christ, instead oi being secured 
 
SANCTIMCATION. 
 
 5X 
 
 i 
 
 by any liabits of holiness which we have or ever 
 shall have formed. 
 
 33. Nor does it imply exemption from sorrow 
 or mental snffering;. 
 
 It was not so with Christ. Nor is it inconsist- 
 ent with our sorrowing tor our past sins, nor 
 sorrowing that we have not now the health and 
 vigor, and knowledge, and love, th.it we might 
 have had if we had sinned less; or sorrowing for 
 those around us — sorrowing in view of human 
 sinfulness, or suffering. These are all consistent 
 with a state of entire sanctification, and indeed 
 are the natural results of it. 
 
 34. Nor is it inconsistent with our living in 
 human society — with mingling in the scenes, and 
 engaging in the affairs of this world. Some have 
 supposed that t .) be holy, we must withdraw 
 from the world. Hence the absurd and ridicu- 
 lous practices of papists in retiring to monasteries, 
 and convents-^in taking the veil, and as they 
 say, retiring to a life of devotion. Now I sup- 
 pose this state of voluntary exclusion from hu- 
 man society, to be utterly inconsistent with any 
 degree of holiness, and a manifest violation of 
 the law of love to our neighbor. 
 
 35. Nor does it imply moroseness of temper 
 and manners. Nothing is farther from the truth 
 than this. It is said of Xavier, than whom, per- 
 haps, few holier men have ever lived, that " he 
 was so cheerful as often to be accused of being 
 gay." Cheerfulness is certainly the result of 
 holy affections. And sanctification no more im- 
 plies moroseness in this world than it does in 
 heaven. 
 
 >i- 
 
 fi 
 
 
 a 
 
 A a; 
 
\ 
 
 1' K 
 
 r * 
 
 \ I 
 
 \ 
 
 52 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 Before I proceed to the next head of my dis- 
 course, (having said these things, and given these 
 rules oi interpretation so that you can apply the 
 principle to many things I have not time to no- 
 tice) I wish to make the following remark : 
 
 In all the discussions I have seen upon this 
 subject, while it seems to be admitted that the 
 law of God is the standard of perfection, yet in 
 defining what constitutes Christian Perfection or 
 entire sanctification, men entirely lost; sight of 
 this standard, and seldom or never raise the 
 distinct inquiry, what does obedience to this law 
 imply, and what does it not imply. Instead of 
 bringinc;; every thing to this test, they seem to 
 lose sight of it. On the one hand they bring in 
 things that never were required by the law of 
 God, of man in his present state. Thus they lay 
 a stumbling block and a snare for the saints, to 
 keep them in perpetual bv.'>:dage, supposing that 
 this is the way to keep them humble, to place 
 the standard entirely above their reach. Or, on 
 the other hand, they really abrogate the law, so 
 as to m? ke it no longer binding. Or they so frit- 
 ter away what is realh/ implied in it, as to leave 
 nothing in its re^arements, but a kind of sickly, 
 whimsical, inefficient sentimentalism, or perfect- 
 ionism, which in its manifestations and results, 
 appears to me to be any thing else than that 
 which the law of Go^ requires. 
 
 IV. What is implied in entire Sanctification. 
 
 Under this head, I shall refer to and repeat 
 some things (as I have alre«idy done) which I 
 
SANCTIFICATIUN. 
 
 Since 
 
 53 
 
 said a number of montj 
 the law of God. 
 
 Love is the sum ^f all that is implied in 
 entire sanctification. But I may and should be 
 asked what is the kind of love required ? I shall 
 consider. 
 
 I. Tlie kind of love to he exercised towards God, 
 
 (i.) It is to be love of the heart, and not a 
 mere emotion. B}^ the heart I mean the will. 
 Emotions, or what are generally termed feelings, 
 are always involuntary states of mind, and no 
 further than they are indirectly under the control 
 of the will, have they any character; i. e. they 
 are not choices or volitions, and of course do not 
 govern the conduct. Love, in the form of an 
 emotion, may exist in opposition to the will; 
 e. g. we may exercise emotions of love contrary 
 to our conscience and judgment, and in opposi- 
 tion to our- will. Thus the sexes often exercise 
 emotions of love towards those to whom a.U the 
 voluntary powers of the mind feel opposed, and 
 with whom they will not associate. So sinners 
 often desire to be Christians, and are exercised 
 wuth strong emotions on the subject of their sal- 
 vation, w^hile their will is entirely opposed to 
 God. And hypocrites are often exercised with 
 deep emotions of love to God, sorrow for sin, 
 and many other classes of emotions, v/hile their 
 will remains purely selfish, and wholly opposed 
 to God. It is true, that, in most cases, the emo- 
 tions are with the will. But they are sometimes 
 nay often opposed to it. 
 
 Now, it is a voluntary state of mind that the 
 law of God requires ; i, e. it lays its claims upon 
 
 
 \\ 
 
 m-^2 
 
 
54 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 the will. The will controls the conduct. And 
 it is, therefore, of course, the love of (he heart 
 or will that God requires. 
 
 (2.) Benevolence is one of the modifications of 
 love which we are to exercise towards God. Be- 
 nevolence is good-willing. And certainly we are 
 bound to exercise this kind of love co God. It 
 is a dictate of reason, of conscience, of common 
 sense, and of immutable justice, that we should 
 exercise good and not ill-will to God. It matters 
 not whether he needs our good-will, or whether 
 our good or ill-will can in any way affect him. 
 The question does not respect his necessities , but 
 deserts. 
 
 GodV: well-being is certainly an infinite good 
 in itself, and consequentlv, we are bound to de- 
 sire it — to will it — to rejoice in it ; and to will it 
 and rejoice in it, in proportion to its intrinsic 
 importance. And as his well-being is certainly 
 a matter of infinite importance, we are under in- 
 finite obligation to will it with all our hearts. 
 
 (3.) Another modification of this love, is com- 
 placency or esteem. God's character is infinitely 
 good. We are therefore bound, not merely to 
 love him. with the love of benevolence ; but to 
 exercise the highest degree of complacency in 
 his character. To say that God is good and 
 lovely, is merely to say that he deserves to be 
 loved. If he deserves to be loved on account of 
 his goodness and love, then he deserves to be 
 loved in proportion to his goodness and loveli- 
 ness. Our obligation, therefore, is infinitely 
 great to exercise towards him the highest degree 
 pf the love of complacency of which we arq ca^ 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 55 
 
 And 
 ; heart 
 
 ions of 
 . Be- 
 we are 
 »d. It 
 mm on 
 should 
 atters 
 lether 
 : him. 
 '5, but 
 
 good 
 to de- 
 ivill it 
 r in sic 
 :ainl3^ 
 er in- 
 s. 
 
 cofn- 
 litely 
 
 ly to 
 
 It to 
 
 y in 
 
 and 
 
 be 
 
 tit of 
 
 be 
 
 v^eH- 
 
 tely 
 
 ^ree 
 ca^ 
 
 ) 
 
 pable. These remarks are confirmed by the 
 Bible, by reason, by conscience, and by common 
 sense. 
 
 (4.) Another modification of this love is grati- 
 tude. As every moral being is constantly receiv- 
 ing favors from God, it is self-evident, that love 
 in the form of gratitude, or the exercise of perfect 
 gratitude, is universally obligatory. 
 
 (5.) Another peculiarity of this love which 
 must, by no means, be overlooked, is that it is 
 disinterested; i. e. that we do not love him for 
 selfish reasons, but that we love him for what he 
 is — with benevolence ; because his well-being is 
 an infinite good — with complacenc}^ because his 
 character is infinitely excellent — with the heart ; 
 because all virtue belongs to the heart. It is 
 plain, that nothing short of disinterested love, is 
 virtue. The Savior recognizes and settles this 
 truth, in Luke vi. 32 — 34: "For if ye love them 
 who love you, what thank have ye ? for sinners 
 also love those that love them. And if ye do 
 good to them who do good to you, what thank 
 have ye ? for sinners also do even the same. 
 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to re- 
 ceive, what thank hav^e ye ? for sinners also lend 
 to sinners, to receive as much again." These 
 words epitomize the whole doctrine of the Bible 
 on this subject, and lay down the broad principle, 
 that to love God, or any one else, for selfish rea- 
 sons, is not virtue. 
 
 (6.) Another peculiarity of this love is that in 
 every instance it must he supreme. Any thing less 
 than supreme love to God, implies an idolatrous 
 
 1 
 
 Hit 
 
 
 ^^ilii 
 
 
I 
 
 ,.. .( 
 
 56 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 I 
 
 II 
 
 state of mind. If any thing else is loved more 
 than God, that is our God. 
 
 I have been surprised to learn that some un- 
 derstand the term supreme, in a comparative, 
 and not in a superlative sense. The}^ suppose 
 that the law of God requires more than supreme 
 love. Webster's definition of supreme and su- 
 premely is " in the highest degree," " to the ut- 
 most extent." I understand the law to require 
 as high a state of devotion to God, of love and 
 actual service as the powers of body and mind 
 are capable of sustaining. 
 
 Observe, that God lays great stress upon the 
 degree of love. So that the degree is essential 
 to the kind of love. If it be not supreme in de- 
 gree it is wholly defective and in no sense accep- 
 table to God. 
 
 2. I will now consider the kind of love to be ex- 
 ercised towari'-i ur fellow men. 
 
 (i.) Itmu5< • < the love of the //^ar^, and not 
 mere desire or emotion. It is very natural to de- 
 sire the good o\ others — to pity the distressed — 
 and to feel strong emotions of compassion to- 
 wards those who are afflicted. But these emo- 
 tions are not virtue. Unless weivill there good, 
 as well as desire it, it is of no avail. James ii. 
 15, 16: *' If a brother or a sister be naked, and 
 destitute of daily food. And one of you say unto 
 them, Depart in peace, be you warmed and filled; 
 notwithstandir.g ye give them not those things 
 which are needful to the body ; what doth it 
 profit ?" 
 
 Here the Apostle fully recognizes the princi- 
 ple, that mere desire for the good of others, 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 57 
 
 ♦ which of 
 
 ici- 
 irs, 
 
 word 
 
 will satisfy itself with good 
 
 s in 
 
 course 
 stead of good deeds, is not virtue. If it 
 
 were good ivilling, nistead of good desiring^ it 
 would produce corresponding action ; and unless 
 it is good willing, there is no holiness in it. 
 
 (2.) Benevolence to men is a prime modifica- 
 tion of holy love. This is included in what 1 
 have said above, but needs to be expressly stated 
 and explained. It is plain dictate of reason, of 
 conscience, of common sense, and immutable 
 justice, that we should exercise good will towards 
 our fellow men — that we should will their good 
 in proportion to its relative importance — that we 
 should rejoice in their happiness, and endea- 
 vor to promote it, according to their relative value 
 in the scale of being. 
 
 (3.) Complacency towards those that are vir- 
 tuous, is another modification of holy love to 
 mqn. I say towards those that are virtuous^ 
 because while we exercise benevolence towards 
 all, irrespective of their character, we have a 
 right to exercise complacency towards those only 
 who are holy. To exercise complacency to- 
 wards the wicked, is to be as wicked as they are. 
 But to exercise entire complacency in those that 
 are holy, is to be ourselves holy. 
 
 (4.) This love is to be in every instance equal. 
 By equal I do not mean that degree of love which 
 selfish beings have for themselves ; for this is 
 supreme. There is a grand distinction between 
 self-love and selfishness. Sell-love is that desire 
 of happiness and dread of misery which is found- 
 ed in the constitution of our nature. Selfishness 
 is the excess of self-love — it is making our own 
 
 !-!''iS 
 
 ;|.W 
 
58 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 happiness the supreme object of pursuit, because 
 it is our own. And not attaching that import- 
 ance to others' interests, and the happiness of 
 other beings, which their relative vahie demands. 
 A selfish mind is therefore in the exercise of the 
 supreme love of self. 
 
 Now the law of God does not require or per- 
 mit us to love our neighbor with this degree of 
 love, for that would be idolatry. But the com- 
 mand, " to love our neighbor as ourselves," im- 
 plies, 
 
 a. That we should love ourselves less than su- 
 premely, and attach no more importance to our 
 own interests and happiness than their relative 
 value demands; so that the first thing implied in 
 this command, is that we love ourselves less than 
 supremely, and that we love our neighbor with 
 the sai iC degree of love which it is lawful for us 
 to exercise towards ourselves. 
 
 b. Equal love does not imply, that we should 
 neglect our own appropriate concerns, and attend 
 to the affairs of others. God has appointed to 
 every man a particular sphere in which to act, 
 and particular affairs to which he must attend. 
 And this business, whatever it is, must be trans- 
 acted for God and not for ourselves. For a man, 
 therefore, to neglect his particular calling, under 
 the pretence of attending to the business of others, 
 is neither required or permitted by this law. 
 
 c. Nor are we to neglect our own families, and 
 the nature and education of our children, to at- 
 tend to that of others. " But if any provide not 
 for his own, especially for those of his own house, 
 he hath denied the faith, and is wor^e than aii 
 
inl- 
 
 and 
 
 at- 
 
 not 
 
 |use, 
 
 SANCTIFiCATlO:^. 
 
 59 
 
 infidel." To these duties we are to attend for 
 God. And no man or woman is required or per- 
 mitted to neglect the children God has given 
 them, under the pretence of attending to the 
 families of others. 
 
 d. Nor does this law require or permit us to 
 squander our possessions upon the intemperate, 
 and dissolute, and improvident. Not that the 
 absolute necessities of such persons are in no 
 case to be relieved by us, but it is always to be 
 done in such a manner as not to encourage, but 
 to rebuke their evil courses. 
 
 e. Nor does this law require or permit us to 
 suffer others to live by sponging out of our pos- 
 ses5=ions, while they themselves are not engaged 
 in promoting the good of men. 
 
 /. Nor does it require or permit us to lend 
 money to speculators, or for speculating purposes, 
 or in any way to encourage selfishness. 
 
 g. But by equal love is meant, as I have said, 
 the same love in kind and degree, which it is 
 lawful for us to exercise towards ourselves. It 
 is lawful, nay, it is our duty to exercise a suita- 
 ble regard to our own happiness. The same 
 degree, we are required to exercise to all our 
 fellow men. 
 
 (5.) Another feature of holy love is that it is 
 impartial; that is, it extends to enemies as well as 
 friends. Else it is selfish love, and comes under 
 the reprobation of the Savior, in the passage 
 before quoted, Luke vi. 32 — 34: "For if ye love 
 them who love you what thank have ye ? for 
 sinners also do even the same," &c. 
 
 Now observe that this test must always be ap- 
 
 r 4 
 
J »»W ili Bj >i>«»l<Mli l <» l l M t >IH illiliii i jx Kf 
 
 60 
 
 VIEWS Op 
 
 
 plied to the kind of love we exercise to our fellow 
 men, in order to understand its genrine'iess. 
 God's love is love to enemies. U was for his 
 eneniies that he gave his Son. Our love must 
 bt' th' -n ^e in kind — it must extend to enemies, 
 as well as friends. And il it does not, it is partial 
 and selfish. 
 
 2. Entire Sanctification implies, entire con- 
 formity of heart and life to all the known will ot 
 God, however it may be made known —to both 
 physical and moral law so far as they are known. 
 
 3. It implies such a perfect confidence in him 
 as to be willing that all events should be at his 
 sovereign disposal — such a confidence as to pre- 
 clude all carefulness and undue anxiety about 
 ourselves or our friends, our temporal or eternal 
 interest, the interests of the Churcn or of the 
 world. Let me be understood. I am as far as 
 possible from supposing a state of entire Siancti- 
 fication inconsistent with the greatest desire, and 
 most earnest and prevailing wrestlings with God 
 for blessings both spiritual and temporal upon 
 ourselves and the world. But I suppose that a 
 soul in a state of entire conformity to the v/ill of 
 God, will never so distrust his provid'^nce and 
 grace as to be thrown into a state of feverish 
 anxiety about any event. It will, on all occasions, 
 most sweetly acquiesce and rejoice in the will of 
 God, in whatever way that will is revealed. 
 
 4. Entire Sanctification implies a supreme dis- 
 position to glorify and serve God --that this is 
 the ruling principle of our life — that we live for 
 no lower or other end thar Ihis — that all other 
 things that we desire are esteemed as a means to 
 
 i 
 
dis- 
 Ls is 
 for 
 :her 
 Is to 
 
 SanctikicaTIon. 
 
 (M 
 
 this end — that life and health, and food and 
 raiment, and houses and furniture, and every 
 thing else that we possess are regarded by us as 
 a means to this one great absorbing end, the 
 Glory ol God. 
 
 5. It implies such a degree of energy in the 
 principle of love, as directly or indirectly to con* 
 trol every design and every voluntary action. 
 
 6. It implies an abiding sense of the presence 
 of God. From what I have already said, you 
 will understand me of course not to mean that 
 God is to be at all times the direct object of 
 thought, attention, and affection, but that there 
 should be such a sense of his presence at all 
 times as to have an important and efficient bear- 
 ing upon our whole lives. Every one kncws by 
 his own experience, what it is to have a kind of 
 sense, or consciousness, or felt conviction of the 
 prese ice of a person, who is not at the time, the 
 direct object of our thoughts. A man in the 
 presence of an earthly pirince, or of an august 
 court, or under the eye of a human judge, would 
 be continually awed, and restrained, and affected 
 with a kind of sense of where he was, and in 
 whose presence, and under whose eye he was 
 acting, although his mind might be so intensely 
 employed in the transaction of business as not 
 at all to make the judge or prince the object of 
 direct thought, attention or affection. In this 
 sense, I suppose a sauctifie.d soui will have an 
 abiding sense at all times and places, of the pres- 
 ence of God. And when the mind is withdrawn 
 from necessary pursuits, it will naturally return 
 to God, and be sensible of his presence in a vastly 
 
 j^<j 
 

 (vl 
 
 VIKWS OF 
 
 ^ 
 
 higher sense than this. It will be so impressed, 
 and melted, and affected by a sense of his pres- 
 ence as can never be expressed in words, but as 
 a matter of experience is familiar to all those 
 who walk with God. 
 
 7. It implies deep and uninterrupted com- 
 munion with God. But here let me correct a 
 mistake into which, as I think, some have fallen. 
 Many seem to recognize nothing as communion 
 with God except that sweet peace and joy, and 
 flowing and glowing love that the soul often ex- 
 periences in seasons of communion. But God 
 no doubt often has seasons of intercourse and 
 communion with the soul and with the sanctified 
 soul, in which he reminds it of past sins and fol- 
 lies. And in order to keep it in a sanctified state 
 he gives it such a view of its past history as to 
 fill it with unutterable shame, and self-abhor- 
 rence, and self-contempt. Now persons are apt 
 to conceive of this state of mind as a state of 
 darkness, and to conceive of themselves as being 
 under the hidings of God's countenance, when in 
 fact they are never perhaps more thoroughly in 
 the light than at such seasons. They are never 
 perhaps nearer to God than on such occasions. 
 To be sure their thoughts are not occupied with 
 those sweet and heavenly visions that fill the 
 mind with joy. Yet they are occupied with 
 considerations of no less importance, and no less 
 indispensable to continuing them in a state of 
 holiness, than those sweet truths which at other 
 times so greatly rejoice them. 
 
 8. It implies a greater dread of offending God 
 than of any other evil. This is implied in su- 
 
SANCTl I'lLATloN. 
 
 f'3 
 
 preme love. It is a contradiction to say that we 
 love Ciod supremely, and yet do not dread offend- 
 ing Him so much as we dread some other evil. 
 If we love Him more than any earthly friend, 
 we shall dread to offend Him morethan to offend 
 that friend. 11 we love Him more than we do 
 ourselves, we shall dread offending Him more 
 than we do that evil should befall ourselves. If 
 he is dearer to us than our own souls we shall 
 dread remaining in sin more than we dread the 
 loss oi' our souls. 
 
 9. It implies the subjugation of all our appe- 
 tites and passions to the will of God. I have al- 
 ready said that the sin of Adam consisted in pre- 
 ferring the gratification of his appetites to doing 
 the will of God. This is the sin of all men. 
 This is the substance and the history of selfish- 
 ness. Now entire obedience to the law of God 
 does not imply that no appetite or susceptibility 
 of body or mind shall be gratified in opposition 
 to the known will of God. But on the other 
 hand, that "the whole body, soul, and spirit" 
 shall be held in a state of entire consecration to 
 God. 
 
 10. It implies the strictest employment of our 
 time in the acquisition of knowledge, and a con- 
 secration of what we already know to the service 
 of God. 
 
 I have before said that the legal maxim, " Ig- 
 norance of the law excuses no one," is true in 
 morals to but a limited extent, and that actual 
 knowledge is indispensable to obligation under 
 the government of God. This I think was suffi- 
 ciently proved by a reference to scripture testi- 
 
 1 
 
64 
 
 VIKVVS OF 
 
 mony. I also said that in sins of ij^norance, the 
 sin consists in the ignorance itself, and not in 
 non-performance of that of which the mind has 
 no knowledge. 
 
 Now to avoid mistake, it is important to re- 
 mark here, that ignorance of our duty is always 
 a sin where we possess the means and opportu- 
 nities of information. In such cases, the guilt 
 of the ignorance is equal to all the default of 
 which it is the occasion. Strictly speaking, the 
 duty to do a thing does not and cannot attach un- 
 til the mind has a knowledge of that thing. Yet 
 if the means of knowledge are within reach of 
 the mind, the guilt is just as great as all the de- 
 fault of which this ignorance is the occasion. So 
 that courts of law do not inflict injustice in hold- 
 ing all the subjects of a government responsible 
 for not knowing the law, where the means of 
 knowledge are within their reach. Although they 
 are not in form pronounced guilty for their ignor- 
 ance, and punished for ;^hat specific offence, but 
 on the contrary are held responsible for breaches 
 of those laws of which they had no knowledge, 
 yet in fact no injustice is done them, as their 
 ignorance in such cases really deserves the pun- 
 ishment inflicted. 
 
 To this it maybe objected that God, under the 
 old dispensation, treated sins of ignorance as in- 
 volving less guilt than sins committed against 
 knowledge. To this I reply, 
 
 He did so. And the reason is very obvious. 
 The people possessed but very limited means of 
 information. Copies of the law were very scarce 
 and utterly inaccessible to the great mass of the 
 
 »» « ' »>«* !■ i i i *4i .ti. i | <,. r ,j i i wi 
 
 ^-^~^^-' fH ii T'^ la i - Mit'i 1... £:- 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 65 
 
 people. So that while he held them sufficiently 
 responsible to engage their memories to retain a 
 knowledge of their duty, and to search it out 
 with all diligence, yet it is plain that he held them 
 responsible in a vastly lower sense than he does 
 those who have higher means of information. 
 The responsibility of the heathen was less than 
 that of the Jews — that of the Jews less than that 
 of Christians — and that of Christians in the early 
 ages of the Church, before the canon of scripture 
 was full and copies multiplied, much less than 
 that of Christians at the present day. 
 
 II. It implies the complete annihilation of self- 
 ishness under all its forms, and a practical and 
 hearty recognition of the rights and interests of 
 our neighbor. Let me point out by a few speci- 
 fications, what the law of God prohibits and 
 what it requires in these particulars as 1 have 
 stated elsewhere. 
 
 (i.) It prohibits all supreme self-love, or self- 
 ishness. The command, " Love thy neighbor as . 
 thyself," implies, not that we should love our 
 neighbor supremely, as selfish men love them- 
 selves ; but that we should . ve ourselves, in the 
 first place, and pursue our happiness, only ac- 
 cording to our relative value in the scale of be- 
 ing. But I need not dwell upon this ; as it will 
 not probably be doubted that this precept pro- 
 hibits supreme self-love. 
 
 (2.) It prohibits all excessive self-love: (i.e.) 
 every degree of love, that is disproportioned to 
 the relative value of our own happiness. 
 
 (3.) It prohibits the laying any practical stress 
 upon any interest, because it is our own, 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 4 M 
 
 
66 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 (4.) It prohibits, of course, every degree of 
 ill-willy and ail those feelings that are necessarily 
 connected with selfishness. 
 
 (5.) It prohibits apathy and indifference in 
 regard to the well being of our fellow men. But, 
 
 (6.) It requires the practical recognition of the 
 fact, that all men are brethren — that God is the 
 great Parent — the great Father of the universe — 
 that all moral agents every where are his children 
 — and that he is interested in the happiness of 
 every individual, according to its relative impor- 
 tance. He is no respecter of persons. But so 
 far as the love of bene volence is concerned, he 
 loves all moral beings in proportion to their capa- 
 city of receiving and doing good. 
 
 Now the law of God evidently takes all this 
 for granted, and that " God hath made of one 
 blood all nations of men, to dwell on all the face 
 of the earth." 
 
 (7.) It requires that every being and interest 
 should be regarded and treated by us according 
 to its relative value ; that is — that we should re- 
 cognize God's relation to the universe, and our 
 relation to each other, and treat all men as our 
 brethren — as having an inalienable title to our 
 good will as citizens of the same government, 
 and members of the great family of God. 
 
 (8.) It requires us to exercise as tender a re- 
 gard to our neighbor's reputation^ interest, and 
 lif ell-being y in all respects, as to our own — to be 
 as unwilling to mention his faults, as to have our 
 own mentioned — to hear him slandered as to be 
 slandered ourselves. In short, he is to be es- 
 teemed by us, as our brother. 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 67 
 
 gree of 
 essarily 
 
 ence in 
 1. But, 
 n of the 
 1 is the 
 verse — 
 hildren 
 ness of 
 impor- 
 But so 
 ed, he 
 r capa- 
 
 ill this 
 of one 
 le face 
 
 iterest 
 ording 
 Lild re- 
 d our 
 as our 
 o our 
 iment, 
 
 r a re- 
 f, and 
 -to be 
 veour 
 to be 
 )e es- 
 
 (9.) It justly reprobates any violation of the 
 great principle of equal love, as rebellion against 
 the whole universe. It is rebellion against God, 
 because it is a rejection of his authority — and 
 selfishness, under any form, is a setting up of our 
 own interests in opposition to the interests of the 
 universe of God. 
 
 12. Entire sanctification implies a willingness 
 to exercise self-denial, even unto death, for the 
 glory of God and good of man, did they require 
 it. The Apostle teaches us that *' we ought to 
 be willing to lay down our lives for the brethren," 
 as Christ laid dowr '^is. 
 
 We have now arrived at a very important point 
 in the discussion of this subject, and I beg your 
 patient attention. Having shown, 
 
 1 . What I mean by the term sanctification ; 
 
 2. What entire sanctification is ; 
 
 3. The difference between entire^ and permanent 
 sanctification ; 
 
 4. What is not implied, and 
 
 5. What is implied in entire sanctification ; 
 
 I am next, according to my plan, to show, 
 
 VI. That entire and permanent sanctification is 
 attainable in this life, 
 
 I. It is self-evident that entire obedience to 
 God's law is possible on the ground of natural 
 ability. To deny this, is to deny that a man is 
 able to do as well as he can. The very language 
 of the law is such as to level its claims to the 
 capacit}^ of the subject, however great or small 
 
 m 
 
 u 
 
 \ 
 
 m\ 
 
 m 
 
 I01 
 
 ■ m 
 
 
68 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 that capacity may be. " Thou shalt love the 
 Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy 
 soul, with all thy mind and with all thy strength." 
 Here then it is plain, that all the law demands, 
 is the exercise of whatever strength we have, in 
 the service of God. Now, as entire sanctifica- 
 tion consists in perfect obedience to the law of 
 God, and as the law requires nothing more than 
 the right use of whatever st^'ength we have, it is 
 of course forever settled that a state of entire and 
 permanent sanctification is attainable in this life 
 on the ground of natural ability. 
 
 This is generally admitted by those who are 
 called New School divines. Or perhaps I should 
 say, it generally has been admitted by them, 
 though at present some of them seem inclined to 
 give up the doctrine of natural ability, and take 
 refuge in physical depravity, rather than admit 
 the attainableness of a state of entire sanctifica- 
 tion in this life. But let men take refuge where 
 they will, they can never escape from the plain 
 letter and spirit and meaning of the law of God. 
 Mark with what solemn emphasis it says, Thou 
 shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, 
 with all thy soul, with all thy mind and with all 
 thy strength. This is its solemn injunction, 
 whether it be given to an angel, a man or a 
 child. An angel is bound to exercise an angel's 
 strength ; a man, the strength of a man ; and 
 a child the strength of a child. It comes to 
 every moral being in the universe just as he 
 is, and where he is, and requires, not that he 
 should create new powers, or possess other 
 powers than he has, but that such as his powers 
 
 \ M 
 
 ..!< 
 
pve the 
 
 all thy 
 Jngth." 
 nands, 
 lave, in 
 :tifica- 
 iaw of 
 e than 
 e, it is 
 eand 
 is life 
 
 are 
 hould 
 them, 
 ed to 
 
 take 
 idmit 
 ifica- 
 '^here 
 plain 
 God. 
 ^hou 
 eart, 
 
 1 all 
 ion, 
 3r a 
 rel's 
 and 
 
 ; to 
 
 he 
 
 he 
 her 
 ers 
 
 SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 69 
 
 are, they should all be used with the utmost 
 perfection and constancy for God. And to use 
 the language of a respected brother, '* If we 
 could conceive of a moral pigmy, the law levels 
 its claims to his capacities, and says to him, 
 " Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, 
 and with all thy strength.'" And should a man 
 by his ov>rn fault render himself unable to use one 
 of his hands, one eye, one foot, or any power of 
 body or mind, the law does not say to him in such 
 case, use all the powers and all the strength you 
 might have had, but only use what powers and 
 what strength remain. It holds him guilty and 
 condemns him for that act or neglect which di- 
 minished his ability, and pronounces upon him 
 a sentence commensurate with all the guilt of all 
 the default of which that act was the cause. But 
 it no longer in any instance requires the use of 
 that power of body or mind which has been de- 
 stroyed by that act. 
 
 2. The provisions of grace are such as to ren- 
 der its actual attainment in this life, the object 
 of reasonable pursuit. It is admitted that the 
 entire and permanent sanctificationof the Church 
 is to be accomplished. It is also admitted that 
 this work is to be accomplished ** through the 
 sanctification of the Spirit and the belief of the 
 truth." It is also universally agreed that this 
 work must be begun here ; and also that it must 
 be completed before the soul can enter heaven. 
 This then is the inquiry : 
 
 Is this state attainable as a matter of fact before 
 death ; and if so^ when, in this life, may we ex- 
 pect to attain it ? 
 
 It is easy to see that this question can be set- 
 
 ^■. 
 
 t. 
 
 '^ 
 
 1* 
 
 m 
 
 III 
 
70 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 tied only by a reference to the Word of God. 
 And here it is of fundamental importance that 
 we understand the rules by which Scripture de- 
 clarations and promises are to be interpreted. 1 
 have already given several rules in the light of 
 which we have endeavored to interpret the mean- 
 ing of the law. I will now state several plain 
 common-sense rules by which the promises are 
 to be interpreted. The question in regard to 
 the rules of Biblical interpretation, is funda- 
 mental to all religious inquiry. Until the Church 
 are agreed to interpret the Scriptures in accord- 
 ance with certain fixed and undeniable prin- 
 ciples, they can never be agreed in regard to 
 what the Bible teaches. I have often been 
 amazed at the total disregard of all sober rules 
 of Biblical interpretation. On the one hand 
 the threatenings, and on the other the promises, 
 are either thrown away, or made to mean some- 
 thirjg entirely different from that which was in- 
 tended by the Spirit of God. I have much to 
 sa}' on this subject, and design, the Lord willing, 
 to make the rules of Biblical interpretation the 
 subject of distinct inquiry at another time. At 
 present I will only mention a few plain common- 
 sense and self-evident rules for the interpretation 
 of the promises. In the light of these we may 
 be able to settle the inquiry before us, viz. : 
 whether the provisions of grace are such as to 
 render entire and permanent sanctification, in 
 this life, an object of reasonable pursuit. 
 
 (i.) The language of a promise is to be inter- 
 preted by a reference to the known character of 
 him who promises, where this character is re- 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 71 
 
 vealed and made known in other ways than by 
 the promise itself; e. g. 
 
 a. If the promiser is known to be of a very 
 bountiful disposition, or the opposite of this, 
 these considerations should be taken into the 
 account in interpreting the language of his pro- 
 mise. If he is of a very bountiful disposition, he 
 may be expected to mean all that he seems to 
 mean in the language of his promise, and a very 
 liberal construction should be put upon his 
 language. But if his character is known to be 
 the opposite of bountifulness, and it is known 
 that whatever he promised would be given with 
 great reluctance, his language should be con- 
 strued strictly. 
 
 b. His character for hyperbole and extrava- 
 gance in the use of language should be taken into 
 the account in interpreting his promises. If it 
 be well understood that the promiser is in the 
 habit of using extravagant language- — of saying 
 much more than he means — this circumstance 
 should, in all justice, be taken into the account 
 in the interpretation of the langi^ges of his pro- 
 mises. But on the other hand, if he be known 
 to be an individual of great candor, and to use 
 language with great circumspection and pro- 
 priety, we may freely understand him to mean 
 what he says. His promise may be in figurative 
 language and not to be understood literally, but 
 in this case even, he must be understood to mean 
 what the figure naturally and fully implies. 
 
 c. The fact should be taken into the account, 
 whether the promise was made deliberately or in 
 circumstances of great but temporary excitement. 
 
 'H". 
 
 ^ ' 
 
72 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 t 
 
 I 
 
 If the promise was made deliberately, it should 
 be interpreted to mean what it says. But if it 
 were made under great but temporary excitement, 
 much allowance is to be made for the state of 
 mind which led to the use of such strong lan- 
 guage. 
 
 (2.) The relation of the parties to each other 
 should be duly considered in the interpretation of 
 the language of a promise ; for example, the 
 promise of a father to a son admits of a more 
 liberal and full construction than if the promise 
 were made to a stranger, as the father may be 
 supposed to cherish a more liberal and bountiful 
 disposition towards a son than towards a person 
 in whom he has no particular interest. 
 
 (3.) The design of the promiser in relation to 
 the necessities of the promisee or person to 
 whom the promise is made, should be taken into 
 J.he account. If it be manifest that the design 
 of the promiser was to meet the necessities of 
 the promisee, then his promise must be so under- 
 stood as to meet these necessities. 
 
 (4.) If it be* manifest that the design of the 
 promiser was to meet the necessities of the prom- 
 isee, then the extent of these necessities should 
 be taken into the account in the interpretation 
 of the promise. 
 
 (5.) The interest of the promiser in the accom- 
 plishment of his design, or in fully meeting and 
 relieving the necessities of the promisee, should 
 be taken into the account. If there is the most 
 satisfactory proof, aside from that which is con- 
 tained in the promise itself, that the promiser 
 feels the highest interest in the promisee and in 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 1' 
 
 fully meeting and relieving his necessities, then 
 his promise must be understood accordingly. 
 
 (6.) If it is known that the promiser has exer- 
 cised the greatest self-denial and made the great- 
 est sacrifice for the promisee, in order to render 
 it proper or possible for him to make and fulfil 
 his promises, in relation to the relieving h's ne- 
 cessities, the state of mind implied in this con- 
 duct, should be fully recognized in interpreting 
 the language of the promise. It would be utter- 
 ly unreasonable. and absurd in such a case to re- 
 strict and pare down the language of his promise 
 so as to make it fall entirely short of what might 
 reasonably be expected of the promiser, from 
 those developments of his character, feelings, and 
 designs, which were made by the great self-denial 
 he has exercised and the sacrifices he has made. 
 
 (7.) The bearing of the promise upon the in- 
 terests of the promiser should also be taken into 
 the account. It is a general and correct rule of 
 interpretation, that when the thing promised has 
 an injurious bearing upon the interest of the 
 promiser, and is something which he cannot well 
 afford to do, and might therefore be supposed to 
 promise with reluctance, the langiiage in such a 
 case is to be strictly construed. No more is to 
 be understood by it than the strictest construction 
 will demand. 
 
 (8.) But if on the other hand the thing prom- 
 ised will not impoverish, or in any way be mim- 
 ical to the interests of the promiser, no such con- 
 struction is to be resorted to. 
 
 (9.) Where the thmg promised is that which 
 the promiser has the greatest delight in doing or 
 
 1 %m 
 
 
 •n 
 
 ■ I 
 
 1 
 
 lil 
 
74 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 f 
 
 bestowing; and where he a:coi "*'-k it 'more 
 blessed to give than to receive;" ai- i Wii re it is 
 well known by other revelations ot' hi: vjharn/'ter, 
 and by his own express and often repeated dec- 
 larations, that he has the highest satisfaction and 
 finds his own happiness in bestowing favors npon 
 the promisee, in this case the most liberal con- 
 struction should be put upon the promise, and he 
 is to be understood to mean all that he says. 
 
 (lo.) The resources and ability of the prom- 
 iser to meet the necessities of th&promisee with- 
 out injury to himself, are to be considered. If a 
 physician should promise to restore a patient to 
 perfect health, it might be unfair to undej:stand 
 him as meaning ail that he says. If he so far 
 restored the patient as that he recovered in a 
 great measure from his di-^ease, it might be rea- 
 sonable to suppose that this was all he really in- 
 tended, as the known inability of a physician to 
 restore an individual to perfect health might 
 reasonably modify our understanding of the 
 language of his promise. But when there can 
 be no doubt as to the ability, resources, and 
 willingness of the physician to restore his patient 
 to perfect health, then we are, in all reason and 
 justice, required to believe he means all that he 
 says. If God should promise to restore a man 
 io perfect health who was diseased, there can be 
 no doubt that his promise should be understood 
 to mean what its language imports. 
 
 (ii.) When commands and prohiises are given 
 by one person to another, in the same language, 
 in both cases it is to be understood alike, unless 
 there be some manifest reason to the contrary. 
 
 ^ ! 
 
H •/ 
 
 SANCTIFIC.N'^ION. 
 
 7» 
 
 SS 
 V. 
 
 (i2.) If neither the language, connection, nor 
 circumstances, demand a diverse interpretation, 
 we are bound to understand the same language 
 alike in both cases. 
 
 (13.) I have said we are to interpret the lan- 
 guage of law so as to consist with natural justice. 
 I now say, that we are to interpret the language 
 of the promises so as to consist with the known 
 greatness, re* ources, goodness, bountifulness, re- 
 lations, design, happiness, and glory of the 
 promiser. 
 
 (14.) If his bountifulness is equal to his justice, 
 his promises of grace must be understood to 
 mean as much as the requirements of his jiistice. 
 
 (15.) If he delights in giving as much as in 
 receiving, his promises must mean as much as 
 the language of his requirements. 
 
 (16.) If he is as merciful as he is just, his 
 promises of mercy must be as liberally construed 
 as the requirements of his justice. 
 
 (17.) If *'he delighteth in mercy," if himself 
 says "judgment is his strange work," and mercy 
 is that in which he has peculiar satisfaction, his 
 promises of grace and mercy are to be construed 
 even more liberally than the commands and 
 threatenings of his justice. The language in this 
 case is to be understood as meaning quite as 
 much as the same language would in any suppo- 
 sable circumstances. 
 
 (18.) Another rule of interpreting and apply- 
 ing the promises, which has been extensively 
 overlooked, is this, that the promises are all 
 ** yea and amen in Christ Jesus." They are all 
 founded upon and expressivr of great and im- 
 
 
76 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 mutable principles of God's government. God 
 is no respecter of persons. He knows nothing 
 of favoritism. But when he makes a promise, 
 He reveals a principle of universal application 
 to all persons in like circumstances. Therefore 
 the promises are not restricted in their applica- 
 tion to the individual or individuals to whom 
 they were first given, but may be claimed by all 
 persons in similiar circumstances. And what 
 God is at on :, time, He always is. What he has 
 promised at one time or to one person, He pro- 
 mises at all times to all persons under similar 
 circumstances. That this is a correct view of 
 the subject is manifest from the manner in which 
 the New Testament wi iters understood and ap- 
 plied the promises of the Old Testament. Let 
 any person, with a reference Bible, read the New 
 Testament with a design to understand how its 
 writers applied the promises of the Old Testa- 
 ment, and he will see this principle brought out 
 in all its fulness. The piomises made to Adam, 
 Noah, Abraham, the Patriarchs, and to the in- 
 spired men of every age, together with the pro* 
 mises made to the Church, and indeed all the 
 promises of spiritual blessings — it is true of them 
 all, that what God has said and promised once, 
 He always says and promises, to all persons and 
 at all times, and in all places, where the circum- 
 stances are similar. 
 
 Having stated these rule^, in the light of which 
 we are to interpret the language of the promises, 
 I will say a few words in regard to the question 
 when a promise becomes due, and on what con- 
 ditions we may realize itsfulfiin^ent. I have said 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 77 
 
 some of the same things in the first vohmie of 
 the EvangeHst. But I wish to repeat them in 
 this connection, and add something more. 
 
 (i.) All the promises of sanctification in the 
 Bible, from their very nature, necessarily imply 
 the exercise of our own agency in receiving the 
 thing promised. As sanctification consists in 
 the right exercise of our own agency, or in obe- 
 dience to the law of God, a promise of sanctifi- 
 cation must necessarily be conditioned upon the 
 exercise of faith in the promise. And its fulfil- 
 ment implies the exercise of our own powers in 
 receiving it. 
 
 (2.) It consequently follows^ that a promise of 
 sanctification, to be of any avail to us, must be 
 due at some certain time, expressed or implied 
 in the promise : That is, the time must be so 
 fixed, either expressly or impliedly, a^ to put 
 us into the attitude of waiting for its fulfil, 
 ment, with daily or hourly expectation of receiv- 
 ing the blessing ; for if the fulfilment of the 
 promise implies the exercise of our own agency, 
 the promise is a mere nullity to us, unless we are 
 able to understand when it becomes due, or at 
 what time we are to expect and plead its fulfil- 
 ment. The promise of Christ to the Apostles 
 concerning the outpouring of the Spirit on the 
 da)' of Pentecost, may illustrate my meaning. 
 He had promised that they should receive the 
 baptism of the Holy Spirit not many days hence, 
 This was sufficiently definite to b/ing t^em into 
 an attitude of continual waiting upon the Lord, 
 with the daily and hourly expectation of receiv- 
 ing the promise. And as the baptism of the Holy 
 
 
^m^. 
 
 73 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 Spirit, involved the exercise of their own agency, 
 it is easy to see that this expectation was indis- 
 pensible to their receiving the blessing. But 
 had they understood Christ to promise this bless- 
 ing at a time so indefinitely future as to leave 
 them without the daily expectation of receiving 
 it, they might, and doubtless would, have gone 
 about their business until some further intimation 
 on his part that he was about to bestow it, had 
 brought them into an attitude of waiting for its 
 fulfilment. 
 
 (3.) A promise in the present tense is on de- 
 mand. In other words, it is always due, and its 
 fulfilment may be plead and claimed by the pro- 
 misee at any time. 
 
 (4.) A promise due at a future specified time, 
 is after that time on demand, and may at any 
 time thereafter be plead as a promise in the 
 present tense. 
 
 (5.) A great many of the Old Testament pro- 
 mises became due at the advent of Christ. 
 Since that time they are to be considered and 
 used as promises in the present tense. The Old 
 Testament saints could not plead their fulfil- 
 ment to them ; because they were either express- 
 ly or impliedly informed, that they were not to 
 be fulfilled until the coming of Christ. All that 
 class of promises, therefore, that became due 
 *'in the last days," *' at the end of the world," 
 that is, the Jewish dispensation, are to be re- 
 garded as now due or as promises in the present 
 tense. ^ 
 
 (6.) Notwithstanding these promises are now 
 due, yet they are expressly or impliedly condi' 
 
 ti 
 
 ui 
 
 tf 
 
 t) 
 
 ii 
 
 L 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 79 
 
 ency, 
 iiidis- 
 But 
 jJess- 
 leave 
 
 tinned upon the exercise of faith, and the right 
 use of the appropriate m6ans, by us, to receive 
 their fulfilment. 
 
 (7.) When a promise is due, we may expect 
 the fulfilment of it at once or gradually, accord- 
 ing to the nature of the blessing. The promise 
 that the world shall be converted in the latter 
 day, does not imply that we are to expect the 
 world to be converted at any one moment ot 
 time ; but that the Lord will commence it at 
 once, and hasten it in its time, according to the 
 faith and efforts of the Church. On the other 
 hand, when the thing promised may in its nature 
 be fulfilled at once, and when the nature of the 
 case makes it necessary that it sljould be, then 
 its fulfilment may be expected whenever we 
 exercise faith. 
 
 (8.) There is a plain distinction between pro- 
 mises of grace and of glory. Promises of glory 
 are of course not to be fulfilled until we arrive 
 at heaven. Promises of gra^e, unless there be 
 some express or implied reason to the contrary, 
 are to be understood as applicable to this life. 
 
 (9.) A promise also may be unconditional in 
 one sense, and conditional in another ; for ex- 
 ample, promises made to the Church as a body 
 may be absolute and their fulfiln\ent be secure 
 and certain, sooner or later, while their fulfil- 
 ment to any generation of the Church, or to any 
 particular individuals of the Church, may be and 
 must be conditional upon their faith and the ap- 
 propriate use of means. Thus the promise of 
 God, that the Church should possess the land 
 of Canaan was absolute and unconditional in 
 
 i 
 
 i ;/ 
 
 if ij 
 
 i 
 
8o 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 such a sense as that the Church, at some period, 
 would, and certainly must, take possession of 
 that la!id. But the promise was conditional in 
 the ~ense that the entering into possession, by 
 any generation, depended entirely upon their 
 own faith and the appropriate use of means. 
 So the promise of the world's conversion, and 
 the sanctification of the Church under the reign 
 of Christ, is unconditional in the sense, that it 
 is certain that those events will at some time 
 occur, but when thev will occur — what genera- 
 tion of individuals shall receive this blessing, is 
 necessarily conditioned upon their faith. This 
 principle is plainly recognized by Paul in Heb. 
 iv. 6, II : "Seeing therefore it remaineth that 
 some must enter therein, and they to whom it 
 was first preached entered not in because of un- 
 belief;" "Let us labor therefore to. enter into 
 that rest, lest any man fall after the same ex- 
 ample of unbelief." 
 
 I come now^ to consider the question directly, 
 and wholly as a Bible question, whether entire 
 and permanent sanctification is in such a sense 
 attainable in this life as to make its attainment 
 an object of rational pursuit. 
 
 Let me first, however, reccll your attention to 
 what this blessing is. Simple obedience to the 
 law oi God is what I understand to be present, 
 and its continuance to be permanent sanctifica- 
 tion. The law is and forever must be the only 
 standard. Whatever departs from this law on 
 either side, must be false. Whatever requires 
 more or less than the law of God, I reject as 
 having nothing to do with the question. 
 
 It will not be my design to examine a great 
 
 I 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 8l 
 
 number of scripture promises, but rather to show 
 that those which I do examine, fully sustain the 
 position I have taken. One is sufficient, if it be 
 full and its application just, to settle this question 
 forever. T might occupy many pages in the ex- 
 amination of the promises, for they are exceed- 
 ingly numerous, and full, and in point. But as 
 I have already given several lectures on the 
 promises, my design is now to examine only a 
 lew of them, more critically than I did before. 
 This will enable you to apply the same princi- 
 ples to the ^examination of the scripture promises 
 generally. 
 
 I. I begin by referring you to the law of God, 
 as given in Deut. x. 12 : "And now, Israel, what 
 doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to 
 fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, 
 and to love Him, and to serve the Lord thy God 
 with all thy heart, and with all thy soul." Upon 
 this passage I remark : 
 
 (i.) It professedly sums up the whole duty of 
 man to God — to fear and love Him with all the 
 heart, and all the soul. 
 
 (2.) Although this is said of Israel, yet it is 
 equally true of all men. It is equally binding 
 upon all, and is all that God requires of any man 
 in rega*-d to himself. 
 
 (3.) Obedience to this requirement is entire 
 ,sanctification. 
 
 See Deut. xxx. 6: ''And the Lord thy God 
 will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy 
 seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine 
 heart, aud with all thy soul, that thou mayest 
 live." Here wt have a promivse couched in tlie 
 
 ill 
 
82 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 same language as the command just quoted. Upon 
 this passage I remark: 
 
 (i.) It promises just what the law requires. It 
 promises all that the first and great command- 
 ment any where requires. 
 
 (2.) Obedience to the first commandment al- 
 ways implies obedience to the second. It is 
 plainly impossible that we should "love God, 
 whom we have not seen," and "not love our 
 neighbor whom we have se-n." 
 
 (3.) This promise, on its very face, appears to 
 mean just what the law means — to promise just 
 what the law requires. 
 
 (4.) If the law requires a state of entire sancti- 
 fication, or if that which the law requires is a 
 state of entire sanctification, then this is a pro- 
 mise of entire sanctification. 
 
 (5.) As the command is universally binding 
 upon all and applicable to all, so this/promise is 
 universally applicable to all who will lay hold 
 upon it. 
 
 (6.) Faith is an indispensible condition to the 
 fulfilment of this promise. It is entirely impos- 
 sible that we should love God with all the heart, 
 without confidence in Him. God begets love in 
 man in no other way than by so revealing Him- 
 self as to inspire confidence, — that confidence 
 which works by love. In Rules 10 and 11, for 
 the interpretation of the promises, it is said, that 
 " Where a command and a promise are given in 
 the same language, we are bound to interpret the 
 language alike in both cases, unless there be sonr^e 
 manifest reason for a ifferent interpretation.'' 
 Now here, there is n^ perceivable reason why 
 
 «L_ 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 83 
 
 we should not understand the language of the 
 promise as meaning as much as the language of 
 the command. This promise appears to have 
 been designed to cover the whole ground of the 
 requirement. 
 
 (7.) Suppose the language in this promise to 
 be used in a command, or suppose that the form 
 of this promise were changed into that of a com- 
 mand. Suppose God should say as He does 
 elsewhere, *' Thou shalt love the Lord thy God 
 with all th}^ heart and with all thy soul;" who 
 would doubt that God designed to require a state 
 of entire sanctification or consecration to Him- 
 self. How, then, are we to understand it when 
 used in the form of a promise? See Rules 14 and 
 15: " If His bountifulness equal His justice. His 
 promises of grace must be understood to mean 
 as much as the requirements of His justice." "If 
 He delights in givmg as much as in receiving, 
 His promises must mean as much as the language 
 of His requirements." 
 
 (8.) This promise is designed to be fulfilled in 
 this life. The language and connection imply 
 this: " I will circumcise thy heart, and the heart 
 of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all 
 thy heart, and with all thy soul." 
 
 (9.) This promise, as it respects the church, at 
 some day, must be absolute and certain. So that 
 God will undoubtedly, at some period, beget this 
 state of mind in the Church. But to what par- 
 ticular individuals and generation this promise 
 will be fulfilled must depend upon their faith in 
 the promise. 
 
 2, See Jer. xxxi. 31 — 34; "Behold, Che days 
 
 i>i 
 
 P 
 
 l!ln 
 
 ; 
 
 1^ 
 
84 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new 
 covenant with the house of Israel, and with the 
 house of Judah ; not according to the covenant 
 that I made with their fathers, ii the day that I 
 took them by the hand, to bring Ihem out of the 
 land of Egypt, (which my covenant they brake, 
 although I was a husband unto them, saith the 
 Lord ;) but this shall, be the covenant that I will 
 make with the house of Israel ; After those days, 
 saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward 
 parls, and write it in their hearts ; and will be 
 their God, and they shall be my people. And 
 they shall teach no more every man his neighbor 
 and every man his brother, saying, know the 
 Lord : for they shall all know me, from the least 
 of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord : 
 for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remem- 
 ber their sin no more." Upon this passage, I 
 remark : 
 
 (i.) It vv^as to become due, or the time its ful- 
 filment might be claimed and expected, w^as at 
 the advent of Christ. This is unequivocally 
 settled in Heb. viii. 8 — 12, where this passage is 
 quoted at length as being applicable to the gos- 
 pel day. 
 
 {2.) This is unden'.:*!.!}^ ?.. promise of entire 
 sanctification. It is a pn>u;ise that the <'law 
 shall be written in the heart ' It n^eans that the 
 very temper and spiri: leqiiire^^ by tite law shall 
 be begotten in the soul. 1\ ow \i the law requires 
 entire sanctification 01 pef'evt boliress, this is 
 certainly a promise of it ; for jJ- is a promise of 
 all that the law requires, f • r-.irj that this is not 
 a promise of entire sanctification, is the same ab- 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 85 
 
 new 
 the. 
 ant 
 lat I 
 
 the 
 ke, 
 the 
 viJl 
 
 surdity as to say, that perfect obedience to the 
 law is not entire sanctification ; and this last is 
 the same absurdity as to say that something 
 more is our duty than what the law requires ; 
 and this again is to say that the law is imperfect 
 and unjust. 
 
 (3.) A permanent state of sanctification is 
 plainly implied in this promise. 
 
 a. The reason for setting aside the first cove- 
 nant was, that it was broken : " Which my cove- 
 nant they brake." Onegraad design of the New 
 Covenant is, that it shall not be broken, for then 
 it will be no better than the first. 
 
 b. Permanency is implied in the fact, that it is 
 to be engraven in the heart. 
 
 e. Permanency is plainly implied in the asser- 
 tion, that God will remember their sins no more. 
 In Jer. xxxii. 39-40, where the same promise is 
 in substance repeated, you will find it expressly 
 stated that the covenant is to be '' everlasting ; " 
 and that he will so " put His fear in their hearts 
 that they shall not depart from Him." Here per- 
 manency is as expressly promised as it can be. 
 
 d. Suppose the language of this promise to be 
 thrown into the form of a command. Suppose 
 God to say, " Let my law be within your hearts, 
 and let it be in your inward parts, and let my fear 
 be so within your hearts that you shall not de- 
 part from me. Let your covenant with me be 
 everlasting." If this language were found in a 
 command, would any man in his senses doubt 
 that it meant perfect and permanent sanctifica- 
 tion ? If not, by what rule of sober interpreta- 
 tion doQS he make it mean anything else when 
 
■jl 
 
 I 
 
 86 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 m 
 
 found in a promise ? It appears to be profane 
 trifling, when such language is found in a pro- 
 mise, to make it mean less than it does when 
 found in a command. See Rule 17. 
 
 (4.) This promise as it respects the Church, at 
 some period of its history, is unconditional, and 
 its fulfilment certain. But in respect to any par- 
 ticular individuals or generations of the Church, 
 its fulfilment is necessarily conditioned upon 
 their faith. 
 
 (5.) The Church as a body, have certainly 
 never received this new covenant. Yet doubt- 
 less multitudes, in every age of the Christian 
 dispensation, have received it. And God will 
 hasten the time when it shall be so fully accom- 
 plished, that there shall be no need for one man 
 to say to his brother, " Know ye the Lord, for 
 all shall know Him from the least to the greatest." 
 
 (6.) It should be understood that this promise 
 was made to the Christian Church and not at all 
 to the Jewish Church. The saints, under the old 
 dispensation, had no reason to expect the fulfil- 
 ment of this and kindred promises to themselves, 
 because their fulfilment was expressly deferred 
 until the commencement of the Christian dispen- 
 sation. 
 
 (7.) It has been said that nothing more is pro- 
 mised than regeneration. But were not the Old 
 Testament saints regenerated ? Yet it is expressly 
 said that they received not the promises. Heb. 
 xi. 13, 39, 40. "These all died in faith, not 
 having received the promises, but having seen 
 them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and 
 embraced them, and confessed that they were 
 
 si 
 
 ai 
 
 r 
 
 s 
 
 s| 
 
 t 
 
 t 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 «7 
 
 strangers and pilgrims on the earth." "And these 
 all, having obtained a good report through faith, 
 received not the promise; God having provided 
 some better thing for us, that they without us 
 should not be made perfect." Here we see that 
 these promises were not received by Old Testa- 
 ment saints. Yet they were regenerated. 
 
 (8.) It has also been said that the promise 
 implies no more than the final perseverance of 
 the saints. But I would inquire, did not the Old 
 Testament saints persevere.'* And yet we have 
 just seen that the Old Testament saints did not 
 receive these promises in their fulfilment. 
 
 3. I will next examine the promise in Ezek. 
 xxxvi. 25-27: "Then will I sprinkle clean water 
 upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your 
 iilthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse 
 you. A new heart also will I give you, and a 
 new spirit will I put within you ; and I will take 
 away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will 
 give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my 
 Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my 
 statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments and do 
 them." Upon this I remark: 
 
 (i.) It was written within nineteen years after 
 that which we have just examined in Jeremiah. 
 It plainly refers to the same time, and is a pro- 
 mise of the same blessing. 
 
 (2.) It seems to be admitted, nor can it be 
 denied, that this is a promise of entire sanctifi- 
 cation. The language is very definite and full. 
 " Then," referring to some future time when it 
 should become due, "will I sprinkle clean water 
 upon you and ye shall be clean." Mark the first 
 
 I 
 
88 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 i it 
 
 ! 
 
 I' 
 I 
 
 promise is, '*ye shall be clean.*' If to be "clean " 
 does not mean entire sanctification, what does it 
 mean ? 
 
 The second promise is, *' from all your filthi- 
 ness and from all your idols will I cleanse you." 
 If to be cleansed "from all filthmess and all 
 idols," be not a state of entire sanctification, 
 what is? 
 
 The third nromise is, "a new heart will I give 
 yoU: "ml 1 iiuvv spirit will 1 put within you; 1 
 will take away the &. ny heart out of your flesh 
 and will give you a heart of flesh." If to have a 
 "clean heart," a "new heart," a " heart of flesh," 
 in opposition to«a "heart of s ^ne," be not entire 
 sanctification, what is? 
 
 The fourth promise is, " I will put my Spirit 
 within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, 
 and ye shall keep my judgments to do them." 
 
 (3.) Let us turn the language of these promises 
 into that of command; and understand God as 
 saying, " Make you a clean heart, a new heart, 
 and a new spirit; put away all your iniquities, 
 all your filthiness, and all your idols ; walk in 
 my statutes, and keep my judgments, and do 
 them." Now, what man in the sober exercise of 
 his reason would doubt whether God meant to 
 require a state of entire sanctification in such 
 
 * commands as these? The rules of legal inter- 
 pretation would demand that we should so 
 understand Him. Rule 5: "The interest of the 
 promiser in the accomplishment of His design or 
 in fully meeting and relieving the necessities of 
 
 ♦ the promisee, should also be taken into the ac- 
 count. If there is the most satisfactory proof, 
 
 ■ 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 89 
 
 aside from that which is contained ir* the promise 
 itself, that the promiser feels the highest interest 
 in the promisee, and in fully meeting and relieving 
 his necessities, then His promise must be under- 
 stood accordingly. - 
 
 If this is so, what is the fair and proper 
 construction of this language when found in a 
 promise? I do not hesitate to say that to me it 
 is amazing that any doubt should be left on the 
 mind of any man, whether, in these promises, 
 God means as much as in His commands, couched 
 in the same language ; for example, see Ezekiel 
 xviii. 30-31 : •' Repent, and turn yourselves from 
 all your transgressions ; so iniquity shall not be 
 your ruin. Cast away from you all your trans- 
 gressions, whereby ye have transgressed ; and 
 make you a new heart ard a new spirit; for why 
 will you die, O house of Israel?" Now that the 
 language in the promise under consideration 
 should mean as much as the language of this 
 command, is demanded by every sober rule of 
 interpretation. .And who ever dreamed that 
 when He required His people to put away all 
 their iniquities. He only meant that they should 
 put away a part of them. 
 
 {^.) This promise respects the Church, and it 
 cannot be pretended that it has ever been fulfilled 
 according to its proper import, in any past age 
 of the Church. 
 
 (5.) As it regards the Church at a future period 
 of its history, this promise is absolute, in the 
 sense that it certainly will be fulfilled. 
 
 (6.) It was manifestly designed to apply to 
 Christians under the new dispensation, rather 
 
 I 1 1 
 
 '■5-| 
 
^m 
 
 90 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 than to tlie Jews uncier the old dispensation. 
 The sprinkHnf; of clean water and the out-pour- 
 ing of the Spirit, seem plainlv to indicate that 
 the promise belonged more particularly to the 
 Christian dispensation. It undeniably belongs 
 to the same class of promises with that in Jer. 
 xxxi. 31 — 34, Joel ii. 28, and many others, that 
 manifestly 1<^ok forward to the gospel day as the 
 time when they shall become due. As these 
 promises have never been fulfdled, in their extent 
 and meaning, their complete fulfilment remains 
 to be realized by the Church as a body. And 
 those individuals and that generation will take 
 possession of the blessing, who understand and 
 believe and appropriate them to their own case. 
 
 4. I will next examine the promise in the text, 
 which stands at the head of this discourse: i 
 Thess v. 23, 24: "And the very God of peace 
 sanctify you wholly : and I pray God your whole 
 spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved blame- 
 less unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do 
 it." Upon this I remark : 
 
 (i.) That according to Prof. Robinson's Lexi- 
 con, the languge used here is the strongest form 
 of expressing perfect or entire sanctification. 
 
 (2.) It is admitted, that this is a prayer for and 
 a promise of entire sanctification. 
 
 (3.) The very language shows, that both the 
 prayer and the promise refer to this life, as it is 
 a prayer for the sanctification of the body as w^ell 
 as the soul ; also that they might be preserved^ 
 not after ^ hut unto the coming of our Lord ^esus 
 Christ. 
 
 (4.) This is a prayer of inspiration, to which is 
 
 an 
 
 ca 
 wi 
 
 ty 
 
 to 
 an 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 91 
 
 annexed an express promise that God will do it. 
 
 (5.) Its fulfilinciit is, from the nature r)f the 
 case, conditioned upon our faith, as sanctification 
 without faith is naturally impossible. 
 
 (6.) Now if this promise, with those that have 
 already been examined, does not, honestly inter- 
 preted, fully settle the question of the attainabili- 
 ty of entire sanctification in this life, it is difficult 
 to understand how any thing can be settled by 
 an appeal to scripture. 
 
 There are great multitudes of promises to the 
 same import, to which I might refer you, and 
 which if examined in the light of the foregoing 
 rules of interpretation, would be seen to heap up 
 demonstration upon demonstration, that this is a 
 doctrine of the Bible. Only examine them in 
 the light of these plain, self-evident principles, and 
 it seems to me, that they cannot fail to produce 
 conviction. 
 
 I will not longer occupy your time in the ex- 
 amination of the promises, but having examined 
 a few of them in proof of the position, that a 
 state of entire sanctification is attainable in this 
 life, I will now proceed to mention other con- 
 siderations in support of this doctrine. 
 
 5. Christ prayed for the entire sanctification of 
 saints in this life. "I pray not," he says, "that 
 thou shouldest take them out of the world, but 
 that thou shouldest keep them from the evil." 
 He did not pray that they should be kept from 
 persecution or from natural death, but he mani- 
 festly prayed, that they should be kept from sin. 
 Suppose Christ had commanded them to keep 
 themselves from the evil of the world ; what 
 
 
 
 m. 
 
 
 l: 
 
IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-S) 
 
 1.0 
 
 l.i 
 
 1.25 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 1.4 
 
 m 
 
 2.0 
 
 1.6 
 
 6" 
 
 P 
 
 /i 
 
 M 
 
 ^>. 
 
 
 •<^W nZ^i >>• 
 
 
 '> 
 
 y 
 
 W 
 
 Hiotographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
ga 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 
 
 should we understand him to mean by such a 
 command r 
 
 6. Christ has taught us to pray for entire 
 sanctification in this life; *' Thy will be done on 
 earth as it is done in heaven." Now, if there is 
 entire sanctification in heaven, Christ requires 
 us to pray for its existence on earth. Ana is it 
 probable that He has taught us to pray for that 
 which He knows never can be or will be granted ? 
 
 7. The Apostles evidently expected Christians 
 to attain this state in this life. — See Col. iv. 12: 
 **Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of 
 Christ, saluteth you, always laboring fervently 
 for you in prayers, that ye may stand perfect and 
 complete in all the will of God." Upon this 
 passage I remark: 
 
 (i.) It was the object of the efforts of Epaph- 
 ras, and a thinr; which he expected to effect, to 
 be instrumental in causing those Christians to be 
 '* perfect and complete in all the will of God." 
 
 (2.) If this language does not describe a state 
 of entire sanctification, I know of none that 
 would. Ii *' to be perfect and complete in all 
 the will of God" be not Christian Perfection, 
 what is ? 
 
 (3.) Paul knew that Epaphras was laboring to 
 this end, and with this expectation ; and he in- 
 formed the Church of it in a manner that 
 evidently showed his approbation of the views 
 and conduct of Epaphras. 
 
 8. That the Apostles expected Christians to 
 attain this state is farther manifest, from 2 Cor. 
 vii. I : " Having therefore these jiromises, dearly 
 beloved, let us cleanse ourselves irom all filthi- 
 
SANTCTIFICATION. 
 
 93 
 
 such a 
 
 entire 
 ne on 
 ere is 
 quires 
 1 is it 
 : that 
 inted ? 
 stians 
 V. 12: 
 mt of 
 vently 
 ct and 
 •n this 
 
 paph- 
 ct, to 
 5 to be 
 )d." 
 state 
 i that 
 in all 
 ction, 
 
 ing to 
 le in- 
 that 
 views 
 
 ns to 
 : Cor. 
 early 
 filthi- 
 
 ness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness, 
 in the fear of God." , 
 
 Now, does not the Apostle speak in this 
 passage as if he really expected those to whom he 
 wrote "to perfect holiness in the fear of God ? " 
 Observe how strong and full the language is, 
 " Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of 
 the flesh and spirit." If "to cleanse ourselves 
 from a// filthiness of the ^^5/1, and all filthiness 
 of the spirit, and to perfect holiness" be not 
 entire sanctification, what is? That he expected 
 this to take place in this life is evident from the 
 fact that he requires them to be cleansed from all 
 filthiness oi the Jiesh as well as of the spirit. 
 
 9. All the intermediate steps can be taken. 
 Therefore the end can be reached. There is 
 certainly no point in our progress towards entire 
 sanctification, where it can be said we can go no 
 farther. To this it has been objected, that 
 though all the intermediate steps can be taken, 
 yet the goal can never be reached in this life, 
 just as five may be divided by three, ad infinitum, 
 without exhausting the fraction. Now, this 
 illustration deceives the mind that uses it, as 
 it may the minds of those who listen to it. It is 
 true that you can never exhaust the fraction in 
 dividing five by three, for the plain reason that 
 the division may be carried on, ad infinitum. 
 There is no end. You cannot in this case take 
 all the intermediate steps, because they are in- 
 finite. But in the case of entire sanctification, 
 all the intermediate steps can be taken ; for there 
 is an end, or state of entire sanctification, and 
 that, too, at a point infinitely short of infinite. 
 
 ii 1-i 
 
94 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 I 
 
 n; 
 
 10. That this state maybe attained in this life, 
 I argue from the fact that provision is made 
 against all the occasions of sin. Men sin only 
 when they are tempted, either by tne world, the 
 flesh or the devil. And it is expressly asserted 
 that in every temptation, provision is made for 
 our escape. Certainly if it is possible for us to 
 escape without sin, under every temptation, then 
 a state of entire and permanent sanctification is 
 attainable. 
 
 11. Full provision is made for overcoming the 
 three great enemies of our souls, the world, the 
 flesh, and the devil. 
 
 (i.) The world — " This is the victory that over- 
 cometh the world, even your faith." *' Who is he 
 that overcometh the world, but he that believeth 
 that Jesus is the Christ." 
 
 (2.) The flesh — ** If ye walk in the Spirit, ye 
 shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh." 
 
 (3.) Satan — "The shield of faith shall quench 
 all the fiery darts of the wicked." "And God 
 shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly." 
 
 Now all sober rules of Biblical criticism re- 
 quire us to understand the passages I have quoted, 
 in the sense I have quoted them. 
 
 12. It is evident from the fact, expressly stated, 
 that abundant means are provided for the accom- 
 plishment of this end. Eph. iv. 9 — 16: "^e 
 that descended is the same also that ascended up 
 far above all heavens, that he might fill all things. 
 And he gave some, apostles ; and some, prophets ; 
 and some, evangelists ; and some, pastors and 
 teachers ; for the perfecting of the saints for the 
 
 .work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 95 
 
 of Christ ; till we all come in the unity of the 
 faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, 
 unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the 
 stature of the fulness of Christ: that we hence- 
 forth be no more children tossed to and fro, and 
 carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the 
 sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby 
 they lie in wait to deceive ; but speaking the 
 truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, 
 which is the head even Christ : from whom the 
 whole body fitly joined together and compacted 
 by that which every joint supplieth, according 
 to the effectual working in the measure of every 
 part, maketh increase of the body, unto the 
 edifying of itself in love." Upon this passage I 
 remark : 
 
 (i.) That what is here spoken of is plainly ap- 
 plicable only to this life. It is in this life that 
 the apostles, evangelists, prophets and teachers 
 exercise their ministry. These means, therefore, 
 are applicable, and so far as we know, only appli- 
 cable to this life. 
 
 (2.) The Apostle here manifestly teaches that 
 these means are designed, and adequate to per- 
 fecting the whole Church as the body of Christ, 
 "till we all come in the unity of the faith and 
 of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto the 
 measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." 
 Now observe : 
 
 a. These means are for the perfecting of the 
 saints, till the whole Church, as a perfect man, 
 *'has come to the measure of the stature of the 
 fulness of Christ." If this is not entire sanctifi- 
 cation, what is? That this is to take place in 
 
 ii 
 
 Mi 
 

 
 96 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 this world, is evident from what follows. For 
 the Apostle adds, "That we henceforth be no 
 more tossed to and fro, and carried about with 
 every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men 
 and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait 
 to deceive," 
 
 (3.) It should be observed that this is a very 
 strong passage in support of the doctrine, inas- 
 much as it asserts that abundant means are 
 provided for the sanctification of the Church in 
 this life. And as the whole includes all its parts, 
 there must be sufficient provision for the sancti- 
 fication of each individual. 
 
 (4.) If the work is ever to be effected, it is by 
 these means. But these means are used only in 
 this life. Entire sanctification, then, must take 
 place in this life. 
 
 (5.) If this passage does not teach a state of 
 entire sanctification, such a state is no where 
 mentioned in the Bible. And if believers are not 
 here said to be wholly sanctified by these means, 
 and, of course, in this life. I know not that it is 
 any where taught that they shall be sanctified at 
 all. 
 
 (6.) But suppose this passage to be put in the 
 language of a command, how should we under- 
 stand it? Suppose the saints commanded to be 
 perfect, and to *'grow up to the measure of the 
 stature of the fulness of Christ," could any thing 
 less than entire sanctification be understood by 
 such requisitions ? Then, by what rule of sober 
 criticism, I would inquire, can this language, 
 used in this connection, mean anything less than 
 I have supposed it to mean ? 
 
 13. God is able to perform this work in and 
 
 'U. 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 97 
 
 for us. Eph iii. 14 — 19 : *' For this cause 1 bow 
 my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and 
 earth is named, that He would grant you accord- 
 ing to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened 
 with liiight by His Spirit in the inner man ; that 
 Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith : that 
 ye, being rooted and grounded jn love, may be 
 able to comprehend with all saints what is the 
 breadth, and length, and depth, and height ; and 
 to know the love of Christ, which passeth know- 
 ledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness 
 of God." Upon this passage I remark : 
 
 (i.) Paul evidently prays here for the entire 
 sanctification of believers in this life. It is im- 
 plied in our being '* rooted and grounded in love," 
 and being *' filled with all the fulness of God," 
 to be as perfect in our measure and according to 
 our capacity, ?s He is. If to be filled with the 
 fulness of God, does not imply a state of entire 
 sanctification, what does ? 
 
 (2.)That Paul did not see any difficulty in the 
 way of God's accomplishing this work, is mani- 
 fest from what he says in the twentieth verse — 
 *' Now unto him that is able to do exceeding 
 abundantly above all that we ask or think, 
 according to the power that worketh in us," &c. 
 
 14. The Bible no where represents death as 
 the termination of sin in the saints, which it could 
 not fail to do, were it true that they cease not to 
 sin until death. It has been the custom of the 
 Church, for a long time, to console individuals, 
 in view of death, by the consideration, that it 
 would be the termination of all their sin. And 
 
 i^i 
 
 ' 
 
 
 . *. 
 
 
 Mi 
 
 ^:1 
 
 H 
 
.j8 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 how almost universal has been the custom hi con- 
 sohng the friends of deceased saints, to mention 
 this as a most important fact, that now they had 
 ceased from sin. Now if death is the termina- 
 tion of sin in the saints, and if they never cease 
 to sin until they pass into eternity, too much 
 stress never has been or can be laid upon that 
 circumstance ; ^nd it seems utterly incredible 
 that no inspired writer 'should ever have noticed 
 the fact. The representations of Scripture are 
 all right over against this idea. It is said '* Bless- 
 ed are the dead who die in the Lord, for they 
 rest from their labors, and their works do follow 
 them." Here it is not int^^^iated that they rest 
 from their sins, but from their good works in 
 this life ; such works as shall follow, not to curse 
 but to bless them. The representations of scrip- 
 ture are that death is the termination of the 
 saint's suffering and labors of love in this worlds 
 for the good of men and the glory of God. But 
 no where in the Bible is it intimated that the 
 death of a saint is the termination of his serving 
 the devil. 
 
 But if it be true that Christians continue to sin 
 till they die, and death is the termination, and 
 the only termination of their sin, it seems to me 
 impossible that the scripture representations on 
 the subject should be what they are. 
 
 15. The Bible representations of death are ut- 
 terly inconsistent with its being an indispensable 
 means of sanctification. Death is represented 
 as an enemy in the Bible. But if death is the 
 only condition upon which men are brought into 
 a stale of entire sanctification, his agency is as 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 99 
 
 n con- 
 ention 
 3y had 
 rmina- 
 cease 
 much 
 •n that 
 edible 
 oticed 
 ire are 
 Bless- 
 r they 
 follow 
 y rest 
 rks in 
 ' curse 
 scrip- 
 )f the 
 worldy 
 But 
 It the 
 irving 
 
 to sin 
 1, and 
 to me 
 ►ns on 
 
 re ut- 
 sable 
 ented 
 is the 
 t into 
 is as 
 
 important and as indispensable as the iuihience 
 ol the Holy Ghost. When death is represented 
 in the Bible as any thing else than an enemy, it is 
 because he cuts short the sufferings of the saints, 
 and introduces them into a state of eternal glory 
 — not because he breaks them off from com- 
 munion with the devil ! How striking is the 
 contrast between the language of the Church and 
 that of inspiration on this subject ! The Church 
 is consoling the Christian in view of death, that 
 it will be the termination of his sins — that he will 
 then cease to serve the devil and his own lusts. 
 The language of inspiration, on the other hand, 
 is, that he will cease, not from wicked but from 
 good works, and labors, and sufferings for God 
 in this world. The language of the Church is, 
 that then he will enter upon a life of unalterable 
 holiness — that then, and not till then, he shall be 
 entirely sanctified. The language of inspiration 
 is, that because he is sanctified, death shall be an 
 entrance into a state of eternal glory. 
 
 1 6. Ministers are certainly bound to set up 
 some definite standard, to which as the ministers 
 of God, they are bound to insist upon complete 
 conformity. And now I would ask, what other 
 standard can they and dare they set up than 
 this ? To insist upon anything less than this, is 
 to turn pope and grant an indulgence to sin. 
 But to set up this standard, and then inculcate 
 that conformity to it is not, as a matter of fact, 
 attainable in this life, is as absolutely to take the 
 part of sin against God, as it would be to insist 
 upon repentance in theory, and then avow that 
 in practice it was not attainable. 
 
 o** 
 
 ®' 
 
 y- 
 
 i i 
 
 V 
 
 : • ; . 
 
 I' 
 
 
 
 ^.. 
 
 ■« 
 
 "T*.* 
 
100 
 
 VIKWS OF 
 
 
 ' 4 
 
 And here let me ask Christians what they 
 expect ministers to preach ? Do you think they 
 have a right to connive at any sin in you, or to 
 insist upon any thing else as a practicable fact 
 than that you should abandon every iniquity? 
 It is sometiL es said, that with us entire sanctifi- 
 cation is a hobby. But I would humbly ask 
 what else can we preach ? Is not every minister 
 bound to insist in every sermon that men shall 
 wholly obey God ? And because they will not 
 compromise with any degree or form of sin, are 
 they to be reproached for making the subject of 
 entire obedience a hobby ? I ask, by what 
 authority can a minister preach any thing less ? 
 And how shall any minister dare to inculcate the 
 duty as a theory, and yet not insist upon it as a 
 practical matter, as something to be expected of 
 every subject of God*s kingdom? 
 
 17. A denial of this doctrine has the natural 
 tendency to beget the very apathy witnessed in 
 the Church. Professors of religion go on in sin, 
 without much conviction of its wickedness. Sin 
 unblushingly stalks abroad even in the Chur*.h 
 of God, and does not fill Christians with horror, 
 because they expect its existence as a thing of 
 course. Tell a young convert that he must 
 expect to backslide, and he will do so of course, 
 and with comparatively little remorse, because 
 h^ looks upon it as a kind of necessity. And, 
 D^ng led to expect it, you find him in a few 
 ths after his conversion, away from God, and 
 t all horrified with his state. Just so, inculcate 
 "ea among Christians that they are not ex- 
 to abandon all sin, and they will of course 
 
or, 
 of 
 ust 
 se, 
 use 
 nd, 
 ew 
 nd 
 ate 
 ex- 
 rse 
 
 ( 
 
 SAWCTIFICATION. 
 
 110 
 
 go on ii. sin with comparative indifference. Re- 
 prove them for their sins, and they will say: 
 *' O, we are imperfect creatures ; we do not 
 pretend to be perfect, nor do we expect we ever 
 shall be in this world." Many such answers as 
 these will show you at once the God-dishonoring 
 and soul-ruining tendency of a denial of this 
 doctrine. 
 
 1 8. A denial of this doctrine prepares the 
 minds of ministers to temporize and wink at 
 great iniquity in their churches. Feeling as 
 they certainly must, if they disbelieve this doc- 
 trine, that a great amount of sin in all believers 
 is to be expected as a thing of course^ their 
 whole preaching, and spirit, and demeanor, will 
 be such as to beget a great degree of apathy 
 among Christians m regard to their abominable 
 sins. 
 
 19. If this doctrine is not true, how profane 
 and blasphemous is the covenant of every church 
 of every evangelical denomination. Every church 
 requires its members to make a solemn covenant 
 with God and with the church, in the presence 
 of God and angels, and with their hands upon the 
 emblems of the broken body and shed blood of 
 the blessed Jesus, "to abstain from all ungodli- 
 ness, and every worldly lust, to live soberly and 
 righteously in this present world." Now, if the 
 doctrine of the attainability of entire sanctifica- . 
 tion in this life is not true, what profane mockery 
 is this covenant ! It is a covenant to live in a • 
 state of entire sanctification, made under the 
 most solemn circumstances, enforced by the^- ^ 
 most awful sanctions, and insisted upon by the 
 
 'i 
 
I02 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 minister of God standing at the altar. Now, 
 what right has any minister on earth to recjuire 
 less than this ? 
 
 And again, what right has any minister on 
 earth to require this, unless it is a practicable 
 thing? 
 
 Suppose when this covenant was proposed to 
 a convert about to unite with the church, he 
 should take it to his closet, and spread it before 
 the Lord, and inquire whether it was right for 
 him to make such a covenant — and whether the 
 grace of the gospel can enable him to fulfil it. 
 
 Do you suppose the Lord Jesus would reply, 
 that if he made that covenant, he certainly would, 
 and must as a matter of course live in the habit- 
 ual violation of it as long as he lives, and that 
 his grace was not sufficient to enable him to keep 
 it ? Would he in such a case have any right to 
 take upon himself this covenant ? No, no more 
 than he would have a right to lie. 
 
 20. It has long been maintained by orthodox 
 divines, that a person is not a Christian who does 
 not aim at living without sin — that unless he 
 aims at perfection, he manifestly consents to live 
 in sin; and is therefore certainly impenitent. 
 It has been, and I think truly, said, that if a man 
 does not in the fixed purpose of his heaVt, aim 
 at total abstinence from sin, and at being wholly 
 conformed to the will of God, he is not yet re- 
 generated, and does not so much as mean to 
 cease from abusing God. 
 
 Now if this is so, and I believe it certainly is, 
 I would ask how a person can aim at, and intend 
 to do what he knows to be impossible. Is it not 
 
odox 
 does 
 >s he 
 :> live 
 tent, 
 man 
 aim 
 lolly 
 t re- 
 n to 
 
 ly is, 
 tend 
 t not 
 
 RANCTIFICATION. 
 
 103 
 
 a contradiction to say that a man can intend to 
 do what he knows he cannot do ? To this it has 
 been objected, that if true, it proves too much — 
 that it would prove that no man ever was a 
 Christian who did not beHeve in this doctrine. 
 To this I repl«' : 
 
 (i.) A ma. I may beheve in what is really a 
 state of entire sanctification, and aim at attain- 
 ing it, although he may not call it by that name. 
 This I believe to be the real fact with Christians; 
 and they would much more frequently attain 
 what they aim at, did they know how to appro- 
 priate the grace of Christ to their own circum- 
 stance. Mrs. President Edwards, for example, 
 firmly believed that she could attain a state of 
 entire consecration. She aimed at and manifestly 
 attained it, and yet, such were her views of 
 physical depravity, that she did not call her 
 state one of entire sanctification. It has been 
 common for Christians to suppose that a state 
 of entire consecration was attainable ; but while 
 they believe in physical depravity, they would 
 not of course, call even entire consecration, entire 
 sanctification. Mrs. Edwards believed in, aimed 
 at, and attained, entire consecration. She aimed 
 at what she believed to be attainable, and she 
 could aim at nothing more. She attained what 
 she aimed at, and nothing more. She called it 
 by the same name with her husband who was 
 opposed to the doctrine of Christian perfection as 
 held by the Wesleyan Methodists ; manifestly 
 on the ground of his notions of physical depravity. 
 I care not what this state is called, if the thing 
 be fidly explained and insisted upon, together 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 li' i 
 
 i 
 
 , * 
 
 ;i 
 
104 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 with the means of attaining it. Call it what you 
 please, Christian perfection, heavenly minded- 
 ness, or a state of entire consecration ; by all 
 these I understand the same thing. And it is 
 certain, tha+ by whatever name it is called, the 
 thing must be aimed at to be attained. The 
 practicability of its attainment must be admitted, 
 or it cannot be aimed at. 
 
 And now I would humbly inquire whether to 
 preach any thing short of this is not to give coun- 
 tenance to sin ? 
 
 21. Another argument in favor of this doctrine 
 is that the gospel as a matter of tact, has often, 
 not only temporarily, but permanently and per- 
 fectly overcome every form of sin, in different 
 individuals. Who has not seen the most beastly 
 lusts, drunkenness, lasciviousness, and every 
 kind of abomination, long indulged and fully 
 ripe, entirelv and forever slain by the power of 
 the grace of God ? Now how was this done ? 
 Oi'ly by bringing this sin fully into the light of 
 the, gospel, and showing the individual the rela- 
 tion the death of Christ sustained to that sin. 
 
 Isothing is wanting to slay any and every sin, 
 but for the mind to be fully baptized into the 
 death of Christ, and to see the bearings of one's 
 own sins upon the sufferings and agonies and 
 death of the blessed Jesus. Let me state a fact 
 to illustrate my meaning. A habitual and most 
 inveterate smoker of tobacco, of my acquaintance, 
 after having been plied with almost every argu- 
 ment to induce him to break the power of the 
 habit and relinquish its use, in vain, on a certain 
 occasion lighted his pipe, and was about to put 
 
 IL 
 
sin, 
 the 
 
 SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 105 
 
 it to his mouth, when the inquiry was started, 
 did Christ die to purchase this vile indulgence 
 for me ? He hesitated, but the inquiry pressed 
 him, Did Christ die to purchase this vile indul- 
 gence for me ? The perceived relation of the 
 death of Christ to this sin instantly broke the 
 power of the habit, and from that day he has 
 been free. 
 
 I could relate many other facts more striking 
 than this, where a similar view of the relation of 
 a particular sin to the atonement of Christ, has 
 in a moment, not only broken the power of the 
 habit, but destroyed entirely and forever, the ap- 
 petite for similar indulgences. 
 
 If the most inveterate habits of sin, and even 
 those that involve physical consequences, and 
 have deeply debased the physical constitution, 
 and rendered it a source of overpowering tempta- 
 tion to the mind, can be, and often have been ut- 
 terly broken up, and forever slain by the grace 
 of God, why should it be doubted that by the 
 same grace, a man can triumph over all sin, and 
 that for ever. 
 
 22. If this doctrine is not true, what is true 
 upon the subject ? It is certainly of great impor- 
 tance that ministers should be definite in their 
 instructions, and if Christians are not expected 
 to be wholly conformed to the will of God in this 
 life, how much is expected of them ? Who can 
 say, hitherto canst thou, must thou come, but no 
 farther ? It is certainly absurd, net to say ridic- 
 ulous, for ministers to be forever pressing Chris- 
 tians up to higher and higher attainments, saying 
 Ht every step you can and must go higher, an4 
 
 ., 
 
 1 
 
 *. 
 
 j 1 
 
 
 ■ ' 1 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 ^'1 1 
 
 
io6 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 li ; 
 
 yet all along informing them that they are ex- 
 pected to fall short of their whole duty — that they 
 can as a matter of fact, be better than they are, 
 far better, indefinitely better ; but still it is not 
 expected that they will do their whole duty. I 
 have often been pained to hear men preach who 
 are afraid to commit themselves in favor of the 
 whole truth ; and who are yet evidently afraid 
 of falling short, in their instructions of insisting 
 that men shall stand ** perfect and complete in 
 all the will of God." They are evidently sadly 
 perplexed to be consistent, and well they may 
 be, for in truth there is no consistency in their 
 views and teachings. If they do not inculcate 
 as a matter of fact, that men ought to do and are 
 expected to do their whole duty, they are s?dly 
 at a loss to know what to inculcate. They have 
 evidently man)'^ misgivings about insisting upon 
 less than this, and still they fear to go to the full 
 extent of apostolic teaching on this subject. And 
 in their attempts to throw in qualifying terms 
 and caveats, to avoid the impression that they 
 believe in the doctrine of entire sanctification, 
 tbey place themselves in a truly awkward position. 
 Cases have occurred in which ministers have 
 been asked, how far we may go, must go, and 
 are expected to go, in depending upon the grace 
 of Christ, and how holy men may be, and are ex- 
 pected to be, and must be, in this life ? They 
 could give no other answer to this, than that 
 they can be a great deal better than they are. 
 Now this indefiniteness is a great stumbling 
 block to the Church. It cannot be according to 
 the teachings of the Holy Ghost, 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 107 
 
 23. The tendency of a denial of this doctrine 
 is, to my mind, conclusive proof that the doctrine 
 itself must be true. Many developments in the 
 recent history of the Church throw light upon 
 this subject. Who does not see that the facts 
 developed in the temperance reformation, have a 
 direct and powerful bearing upon this question ? 
 It has been ascertained that there is no possi- 
 bility of completing the temperance reformation, 
 except by adopting the principle of total absti- 
 nence from all intoxicating drinks. Let a tem- 
 perance lecturer go forth, as an Evangelist to 
 promote revivals on the subject of temperance — 
 let him inveigh against drunkenness, while he ad- 
 mits and defends the moderate use of alcohol, or 
 insinuates, at least, that total abstinence is not 
 expected or practicable. In this stage of tem- 
 peranc'e reformation every one can see that such 
 a man could make no progress ; that he would 
 be employed like a child bn.ilding dams of sand 
 to obstruct the rushing of mighty waters. It is as 
 certain as that causes produce their effects, that 
 no permanent reformation could be effected with- 
 out adopting and insisting on the total abstinence 
 principle. 
 
 And now if this is true as it respects the tem- 
 perance reformation, how much more so when 
 applied to the subjects of holiness and sin. A 
 man might, by some possibility, even in his own 
 strength, overcome his habit of drunkenness, and 
 retain what might be called the temperate use of 
 alcohol. But no such thing is possible in a re- 
 formation frorn^ sin. Sin is never overcome by 
 any man in his own strength. If he admits into 
 
 »'■■ 
 
 i§ 
 
 ' 
 
 Ir I 
 
 I 
 
.Mi 
 
 1 08 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 « 
 
 h 
 
 H I 
 
 his creed the necessity of any degree of sin, or if 
 he allows in practice any degree of sin, he be- 
 comes impenitent — consents to live in sin — and 
 is of course abandoned by the Holy Spirit, the 
 certain result of which is, a relapsing into a state 
 of legal bondage to sin. And this is probably a 
 true history of ninety-nine one hundredths of the 
 Church. It is just what might be expected from 
 the views and practice of the Church upon this 
 subject. 
 
 The secret of backsliding is that reformations 
 are not carried deep enough. Christians are not 
 set with all their hearts to aim at a speedy deliv- 
 erance from all sin. But on the contrary are left 
 and in many instances taught to indulge the ex- 
 pectation that they shall sin as long as they live. 
 I probably never shall forget the effect produced 
 on my mind by reading, when a young convert, 
 in the diary of David Brainerd, that he never ex- 
 pected to make any considerable attainments in 
 holiness in this life. I can now easily see that 
 this was a natural inference from the theory of 
 physical depravity which he held. But not per- 
 ceiving this at the time, I doubt not that this ex- 
 pression of his views had a very injurious effect 
 upon me for many years. It led me to reason 
 thus : If such a man as David Brainerd did not 
 expect to make much advancement in holiness in 
 this life, it is vain for me to expect such a thing. 
 
 The fact is, if there be anything that is impor- 
 tant to high attainments in holiness, and to the 
 progress of the work of sanctification in this life, 
 it is the adoption of the principle of total absti- 
 nence from sin. Total abstinence from sin, must 
 
 
SANCTIFICATION'. 
 
 109 
 
 be every man's motto, or sin will certainly sweep 
 him away as with a flood. That cannot possibly 
 be a true principle in temperance, that leaves the 
 causes which produce drunkenness to operate in 
 their full strength. Nor can that be true in re- 
 gard to holiness which leaves the root unex- 
 tracted, and the certain causes of spiritual decline 
 and backsliding at work in the very heart of the 
 Church ? And I am fully convinced that until 
 Evangelists and Pastors adopt and carry out in 
 principle and practice, the principle of total ab- 
 stinence from all sin, they will as certainly find 
 themselves every few months, called to do their 
 work over again, as a temperance lecturer would 
 who should admit the moderate use of alcohol. 
 24. Again, the tendency of the opposite view 
 of this subject, shows that that cannot be true. 
 Who does not know, that to call upon sinners to 
 repent, and at the same time to inform them that 
 they will not, and cannot, and are not expected 
 to repent, would forever prevent their repentance. 
 Suppose you say to a sinner, you are naturally 
 able to repent ; but it is certain that you never 
 will repent in this life, either with or without the 
 Holy Ghost. Who does not see that such teach- 
 ing would as surely prevent his repentance as he 
 believed it ? So, say to a professor of religion, 
 you are naturally able to be wholly conformed to 
 God ; but it is certain that you never will be in this 
 life, either in your own strength or by the grace 
 of God. If this teaching be believed, it will just 
 as certainly prevent his sanctification as the 
 other teaching would the repentance of the sin- 
 ner. I can speak from experience on this sub- 
 
 M f- 
 
 . » 
 
 I 
 
 il 
 
 
 %1 
 
 
.s« 
 
 I TO 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 n 
 
 ^ 
 
 ject. While I inculcated the common views, I 
 was often instrumental in bringing Christians 
 under great conviction, and into a state of tem- 
 porary repentance and faith. But falling short 
 of urging them up to a point where they would 
 become so acquainted with Christ, as to abide in 
 Him, they would of course soon relapse again 
 into their former stale. I never saw, and can 
 now understand that I had no reason to expect 
 to see, under the instructions which I then 
 gave, such a state of religious feeling, such 
 steady and confirmed walking with God among 
 Christians, as I have seen since the change in 
 my views and instructions. 
 
 I might urge a great many other considera- 
 tions, and as I have said, fill a book with scrip- 
 tures, and arguments, and demonstrations, of the 
 attainability of entire sanctification in this life. 
 
 But I forbear, and at present will present only 
 one more consideration, a consideration which 
 lias great weight in some minds. It is a question 
 of great importance, at least, in some minds, 
 whether any actually ever did attain this state. 
 Some, who believe it attainable, do not consider 
 it of much importance to show that it has actually 
 been attained. Now I freely admit that it may 
 be attainable, although it never has been attained. 
 Yet it appears to me that as a matter of encour- 
 agement to the Church, it is of great importance 
 whether, as a matter of fact, a state of entire and 
 continued holiness has been attained in this life. 
 This question covers much ground. But for the 
 sake of brevity, I design to examine but one case, 
 and see whether there is not reason to believe 
 
 
sanctifk:atu)N. 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 that in one instance, at least, it has been attained. 
 The case to which I allude is that ol the Apostle 
 Paul. And I propose to take up and examine 
 the passages that I speak of for the purpose 
 of ascertaining whether there is evidence that 
 he ever attained to this state in this life. 
 
 And here let me say that to my own mind it 
 seems plain, that Paul and John, to say nothing 
 of the other Apostles, designed and expected the 
 Church to understand them as speaking from ex- 
 perience, and as having received of that fulness 
 which they taught to be in Christ and in his 
 gospel. 
 
 And I wish to say again and more expressly, 
 that I do not rest the practicability of attaining 
 a state of entire and continued holiness at all 
 upon the question, whether any ever have attain- 
 ed it any more than I would rest the question, 
 whether the world ever will be converted, upon 
 the fact whether it ever has been converted. I 
 have been surprised, when the fact that a state 
 of entire holiness has been attained, is urged as 
 one argument among a great many, to prove its 
 attainability, and that, too, merely as an en- 
 couragement to Christians to lay hold upon this 
 blessing — that objectors and reviewers fasten 
 upon this as the doctrine of sanctification, as if 
 by calling this particular question in doubt, they 
 could overthrow all the other proof of its attain- 
 ability. Now this is utterly absurd. When, 
 then, I examine the character of Paul with this 
 object in view, if it should not appear clear to 
 3^ou that he did attain this state, you are not to 
 overlook the fact, that its attainability is settled 
 
 ! • 
 
 ■'•' t 
 
112 
 
 VIKWS OF 
 
 
 by other arguments, on grounds entirely indepeu- 
 dent of the question whether it has been attained 
 or not ; and tliat I merely use this as an argu- 
 ment, simply because to me it appears forcible, 
 and fitted to afford great encouragement to 
 Christians to press after this state. 
 
 I will first make some remarks in regard to the 
 manner in which the language of Paul, when 
 speaking of himself, should be understood ; and 
 then proceed to an examinat'on of the passages 
 which speak of his Christian character. 
 
 1. His revealed character demands that we 
 should understand him to mean all that he says, 
 when speaking in his own favor. 
 
 2. The spirit of inspiration would guard him 
 against speaking too highly of himself. 
 
 3. No man ever seemed to possess greater 
 modesty, and to feel more unwilling to exalt his 
 own attainments. 
 
 4. If he considered himself as not having at- 
 tained a state of entire sanctification, and as often 
 if not in all things, falling short of his duty, we 
 may expect to find him acknowledging this in 
 the deepest self-abasement. 
 
 5. If he is charged with living in sin, and with 
 being wicked in any thing, we may expect him, 
 when speaking under inspiration, not to justify, 
 but unequivocally condemn himself in those 
 things if he was really guilty. 
 
 Now in view of these facts, let us examine 
 those scriptures in which he speaks of himself, 
 and is spoken of by others. 
 
 • (i.) I Thess. ii. 10: "Ye are witnesses, and 
 God also, how holily, and justly, and unblama- 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 113 
 
 depeu- 
 ttained 
 argu- 
 •rcible, 
 ent to 
 
 to the 
 when 
 
 !; and 
 Bsages 
 
 at we 
 says, 
 
 I him 
 
 eater 
 t his 
 
 g at- 
 ^ften 
 S we 
 s in 
 
 with 
 lim, 
 tify, 
 lose 
 
 line 
 >elf, 
 
 ind 
 na- 
 
 bly, we behaved ourselves among you that be- 
 lieve." Upon this text I remark : 
 
 a. Here he unqualifiedly ass rts his own holi- 
 ness. This language is very strong, *' How ho- 
 lily, justly, and unblamably." If to be holy, 
 just, and unblamable, be not entire sanctification 
 what is ? 
 
 b. He appeals to the heart-searching God for 
 the truth of what he says, and to their own ob- 
 servation ; calling on God and on them also to 
 bear witners, that he had been holy and without 
 blame. 
 
 c. Here we have the testimony of an inspired 
 Apostle, in the most unqualified language, assert- 
 ing his own entire sanctification. Was he de- 
 ceived ? Can it be that he knew himself all the 
 time to have been living in sin ? If such language 
 as this does not amount to an unqualified asser- 
 tion that he had lived among them without sin, 
 what can be known by the use of human lan- 
 guage ? 
 
 (2.) 2 Cor. vi. 3 — 7: "Giving no offence m 
 any thing, that the ministry be not blamed: but 
 in all things approving ourselves as the min'sters 
 of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in neces- 
 sities, in distresses, in stripes, in imprisonments, 
 in tumults, in labors, in watchings, in fastings ; 
 by pureness, by knowledge, by long-suffering, by 
 kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, 
 by the word of truth, by the power of God, by 
 the armor of righteousness on the r.ght hand and 
 on the left." Upon these verses I remark : 
 
 a. Paul asserts that he gave no offence in any 
 thing, but in all things approved himself as a, 
 
 I 
 
 11 
 
 1 ■'•: 
 
 ■;| 
 
IH 
 
 VlliWS OF 
 
 minister of God. Among other things he did 
 this, "by pureness," **by the Holy Ghost, by 
 love unfeigned," and **by the armor of righteous- 
 ness on the right hand and on the left." How 
 could so modest a man as Paul sp^^ak of himself 
 in this manner, unless he knew himself to be in 
 a state of entire sanctification, and thought it 
 of great importance that the Church should 
 know it ? 
 
 (3.) 2 Cor. i. 12: '*For our rejoicing is this, 
 the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity 
 and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, 
 but by the grace of God, we have had our con- 
 versation in the world, and more abundantly to 
 you-ward." This passage plainly implies the 
 same thing, and was manifestly said for the same 
 purpose — to declare the greatness of the grace of 
 God as manifested in himself. 
 
 (4.) Acts xxiv. 16: "And herein do I exercise 
 myself to have always a conscience void of of- 
 fence toward God, and toward men," Paul 
 doubtless at this time had an enlightened con- 
 science. If an inspired Apostle could affirm, that 
 he "exercised himself to have always a con- 
 science void of offence toward God and toward 
 men," must he not have been in a state of entire 
 sanctification ? 
 
 (5.) 2 Tim. i. 3: " I thank God, whom I serve 
 from my forefathers with a pure conscience, that 
 without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in 
 my prayers night and day." Here again he 
 affirms that he serves God with a pure con- 
 science, Could this be, if he was often, and per' 
 
 ai 
 
 ■MM 
 
 MMM 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 115 
 
 haps every day, as some suppoF'^;, violating his 
 conscience? 
 
 (6.) Gal. ii. 20: "I am crucified with Christ : 
 nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth 
 in me ; and the life which I now live in the flesh, 
 I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved 
 me, and gave himself for me." This does not 
 assert, but strongly implies that he lived without 
 sin. 
 
 (7.) Gal. vi. 14: " But God forbid that I should 
 glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I 
 unto the world." This text also affords the same 
 inference as above. 
 
 (8.) Phil. i. 21: "For to me to live is Christ, 
 and to die is gain." Hr^e the Apostle affirms 
 that for him to live was as if Christ lived in the 
 Church. How could he say this, unless his ex- 
 ample, and doctrine, and spirit, were those of 
 Christ ? 
 
 (9.) Acts XX. 26: *' Wherefore I take you to 
 record this day, that I am pure from the blood 
 of all men." Upon this I remark : 
 
 a. This passage, taken in its connection, shows 
 clearly, the impression that Paul desired to make 
 upon the minds of those to whom he spake. 
 
 b. It is certain that he could in no pioper sense 
 be " pure from the blood of all men," unless he 
 had done his whole duty. If he had been sin- 
 fully lacking in any grace, or virtue, or labor, 
 could he have said this ? Certainly not. 
 
 (10.) I Cor. iv. 16, 17: "Wherefore, I beseech 
 you, be ye followers of me. For this cause have 
 I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved 
 
 'i 
 
 I 
 
116 
 
 b' i 
 
 J ■" 
 
 I I 
 I I 
 
 ri 
 
 VJI \VS OF 
 
 Y^/'^t, as I teach every wh^ '^''>'" ^'"^h he in 
 i remark : ^'^'"^>' where m every church " 
 
 " Je were living i„ S"? ""^ ^°'"'' ''« <Jo thfs" 
 "lemor/esln re ''"rn'^".'' '""'«'" *" refresh th.- 
 '"jn«elf practiced. '^"«^''' '" «very church, he 
 
 - "df l^f /V^ cLr^tJ.^ ^£w- of me. 
 
 (i2 ) puj] "• '^idine., 
 
 IZgrther of me;-a'/d mark .t""""^"' f'- ^'lowers 
 
 for ?he'U" ^""^«"' fro7w•henceV"^'='^"^«'• 
 agaii'pS •calls*'" "-""^ Jesus ChTL'^^o look 
 
 , K^3') Fhil iv. o • u 'TL 
 
 With you.- ' 'tL' Phln" ^"'^ °'' peace shah'h' 
 ^^'■^-----tWeATd^^^ 
 
RANCTIFlCATIoN. 
 
 !T7 
 
 received, and skj'.n in Him." And then he adds, 
 that if they •* do those things, the God of peace 
 shall be with them." Now can it be that he 
 meant that thev shiHild understand any thinpf 
 less, than that iw. had lived without sin amonj^ 
 them ? 
 
 I will next examine those passages which are 
 supposed by some, to imply that Paul was not in 
 a state of entire sanrtification. 
 
 (14.) Act XV. 3O — 40 : " And some days after, 
 Paul said unto Uarnabas, let us go again and 
 visit our brethren in every city where we have 
 preached the word of the Lord, and see how they 
 do. And Barnabas determined to take with 
 them John, whose surname was Mark. But 
 Paul thought not good to take him with them, 
 who departed from them from Pamphylia, and 
 went not with them to the work. And the con- 
 tention was so sharp between them, that they 
 departed asunder one from the other ; and so 
 Barnabas took Mark, and sailed to Cyprus : and 
 Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recom- 
 mended by the brethren, unto the grace of God." 
 
 Upon this passage I remark : 
 
 a. This contention between Paul and Barnabas 
 was founded upon the fact, that John, who was 
 a nephew of Barnabas, had once abruptly left 
 them in their travels, it would seen, without any 
 justifiable reason, and had returned home. 
 
 b. It appears that the confidence of Barnabas 
 in his nephew was restored. 
 
 c. That Paul was not as yet satisfied of the 
 stability of his character, and thought it danger- 
 ous to trust him as a travelling companion '\nd 
 
 I 
 
 
 1 f 
 
 
 ^1 
 
ii8 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 '. Si 
 
 ■ \ 
 
 % 
 
 u 
 
 
 fellow laborer. It is not intimated, nor can it be 
 fairly inferred that either of them sinned in this 
 contention. 
 
 d. It sufficiently accounts for what occurred, 
 that they disagreed in their views of the expedi- 
 ency of taking John with them. 
 
 e. Being men of principle, neither of them felt 
 it to be his duty to yield to the opinion of the 
 other. 
 
 /. If either was to be blamed, it seems that 
 Barnabas was in fault, rather than Paul, inasmuch 
 as he determined to take John with him without 
 having consulted Paul. And he persisted in this 
 determination until he met with such firm resist- 
 ance on the part of Paul, that he took John and 
 sailed abruptly for Cyprus ; while Paul choosing 
 Silas as his companion, was recommended by the 
 brethren to the grace of God, and departed. 
 Now certainly there is nothing in this transac- 
 tion, that Paul or any good man, or an angel, 
 under the circumvStances, need to have been 
 ashamed of, that we can discover. It does not 
 appear, that Paul ever acted more from a regard 
 to the glory of God and the good of religion, than 
 in this transaction. And I would humbly in- 
 quire what spirit is that which finds sufficient 
 evidence in this case to charge an inspired 
 Apostle with rebellion against God ? But even 
 admitting that he did sin in this case, where is 
 the evidence that he was not afterwards sancti- 
 fied when he wrote the epistles ? — for this was 
 before the writing of any of his epist' 3s. 
 
 (15.) Acts xxiii. 1-5. "And Paul, earnestly 
 beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I 
 
 ki_ 
 
it be 
 this 
 
 
 SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 119 
 
 have lived in all good conscience before God 
 until this day. And the high priest Ananias 
 commanded them that stood by him to smite him 
 on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God 
 shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest 
 thou to judge me after the law, and commandest 
 me to be smitten contrary to the law? And they 
 that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high 
 priest ? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that 
 he was the high priest: for it is written. Thou 
 shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people." 
 In this case, sinful anger has been imp.uted to 
 Paul; but, so far as I can see, without any just 
 reason. To my mind it seems plain that the 
 contrary is to be inferred. It appears that Paul 
 was not personally acquainted with the then 
 officiating high priest. And he manifested the 
 utmost regard to the authority of God in quoting 
 from the Old Testament, "Thou shalt not speak 
 evil of the ruler of thy people " — implying, that 
 notwithstanding the abuse he had received, he 
 should not have made the reply, had he known 
 him to be the high priest. 
 
 (16.) Rom. vii., from the fourteenth to the 
 twenty-fifth verse, has by many been supposed 
 to be an epitome of Paul's experience at the time 
 he wrote the epistle. Upon this I remark : 
 
 a. The connection and drift of Paul's reason- 
 ing show that the case of which he was speaking, 
 whether his own or the case of some one else, 
 was adduced by him to illustrate the influence of 
 the law upon the carnal mind. 
 
 b. This is a case in which sin had th^ entire 
 
 ¥ 
 
 ■ •«' 
 
.fi 
 
 1' 
 
 I 20 
 
 VIEWS Oh 
 
 8 v'; 
 
 !' ! 
 
 y< 
 
 
 dominion, and overcame all his resolutions of 
 obedience. 
 
 c. That his use of the singular pronoun and in 
 the first person, proves nothing in regard to 
 whether or not he was speaking of himself, for 
 this is common with him, and with other writers, 
 when using illustrations. 
 
 d. He keeps up the personal pronoun, and 
 passes into the eighth chapter ; at the beginning 
 of which he represents himself or the person of 
 whom he is speaking, as being not only in a 
 different, but in an exactly opposite state of 
 mind. Now, if the seventh chapter contains 
 Paul's experience, whose experience is this in the 
 eighth chapter? Are we to understand them 
 both as the experience of Paul? If so, we must 
 understand him as first speaking of his experience 
 before and then after he was sanctified. He 
 begins the eighth chapter by saying, ** There is 
 now no condemnation to them who are in Christ 
 Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but alter the 
 Spirit;" and assigns as a reason, that "The law 
 of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me 
 free from the law of sin and death." The law 
 of sin and death was that law in his members, or 
 the influence of the flesh, of which he had so 
 bitterly complained in the seventh chapter. But 
 now it appears that he has passed into a state in 
 which he is made free from this influence of the 
 flesh — is emancipated and dead to the world, and 
 to the flesh, and in a state in which "there is no 
 condemnation." Now, if there was no condem- 
 nation in the state in which he was, it must have 
 been, either because he did not sin; or, if he did 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 121 
 
 and 
 
 ining 
 
 of 
 
 a 
 
 of 
 
 sin, because the law did not condemn him; or, 
 because the law of God was repealed or abro- 
 gated. Now, if the penalty of the law was so 
 set aside in his case, that he could sin without 
 condemnation, this is a real abrogation of the 
 law. For a law without a penalty is no law, and 
 if the law is set aside, there is no longer any 
 standard, and he was neither sinful nor holy. 
 But as the law was not and cannot be set aside, 
 its penalty was not and cannot be so abrogated 
 as not to condemn every sin. If Paul lived 
 without condemnation, it must be because he 
 lived without sin. 
 
 To me it does not appear as if Paul speaks of 
 his own experience in the seventh chapter of 
 Romans, but that he merely supposes a case by 
 way of illustration, and speaks in the first person 
 and in the present tense, simply because it was 
 convenient and suitable to his purpose. His ob- 
 ject manifestly was, in this and in the begmning 
 of the eighth chapter, to contrast the influence of 
 the law and of the gospel — to describe in the 
 seventh chaoter the state of a man who was liv- 
 ing in sin, and every day condemned by the law, 
 convicted and constantly struggling with his own 
 corruptions, but continually overcome, — and in 
 the eighth chapter to exhibit a person in the en- 
 joyment of gospel liberty, where the righteous- 
 ness of the law was fulfilled in the heart by the 
 grace of Christ. The seventh chapter may well 
 apply either to a person in a backslidden state, 
 or to a convicted person who had never been 
 converted. The eighth chapter can clearly be 
 
 ^r 
 
 
.1^ 
 
 122 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 i ■; 
 il 
 
 applicable to none but to those who are in a state 
 of entire sanctification. 
 
 I have already said that the seventh chapter 
 contains the history of one over whom sin has 
 dominion. Now to suppose that this was the 
 experience of Paul when he wrote the epistle, or 
 of any one who was in the liberty of the gospel, 
 is absurd and contrary to the experience of every 
 person who ever enjoyed gospel liberty. And 
 farther, this is as expressly contradicted in the 
 sixth chapter as it can be. As I said, the seventh 
 chapter exhibits one over whom sin has domin- 
 ion ; but God says, in the sixth chapter and 
 fourteenth verse, " For sin shall not have do- 
 minion over you : for ye are not under the law. 
 but under grace." 
 
 I remark finally upon this passage, that if 
 Paul was speaking of himself in the seventh 
 chapter of Romans, and really giving a history 
 of his own experience, it proves nothing at all 
 in regard to his subsequent sanctification ; for, 
 
 a. If this was his experience at the time he 
 wrote the epistle, it would prove nothing in re- 
 regard to what afterwards occurred in his own 
 experience. 
 
 b. The eighth chapter shows conclusively, that 
 it was not his experience at the time he wrote 
 the epistle. The fact that the 7th and 8th chap- 
 ters have been separated since the translation 
 was made as I have before said, has led to much 
 error in the understanding of this passage. Noth- 
 ing is more certain than that the two chapters 
 were designed to describe not only different ex- 
 periences, but experiences opposite to each other. 
 
 Uj_i. 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 123 
 
 And that both these experiences should belong 
 to the same person at the same time, is manifestly 
 impossible. If, therefore Paul is speaking in 
 this connection of his own experience, we are 
 bound to understand the eighth chapter as de- 
 scribing his experience at the time he wrote the 
 epistle; and the seventh chapter as descriptive 
 of a former experience. 
 
 Now, therefore, if any one understands the 
 seventh chapter as describing a Christian experi- 
 ence, he must understand it as giving the exer- 
 cises of one in a very imperfect state ; and the 
 eighth chapter as descriptive of a soul in a state 
 of entire sanctification. So that this epistle, 
 instead of militating against the idea of Paul's 
 entire sanctification, upon the supposition that 
 he was speaking of himself, fully establishes the 
 fact that he was in that state. What do those 
 brethren mean who take the latter part of the 
 seventh chapter as entirely disconnected with 
 what precedes and follows it, and make it tell a 
 sad story on the subject of the legal and sinful 
 bondage of an inspired Apostle? What can not 
 be proved from the Bible in this way ? Is it not 
 a sound and indispensable rule of Biblical inter- 
 pretation, that a passage is to be taken in its 
 connection, and that the scope and leading in- 
 tention of the writer is to be continually borne 
 in mind in deciding upon the meaning of any 
 passage? Why then, I pray, are the verses that 
 precede, and those that immediately follow in the 
 eighth chapter, entirely overlooked in the ex- 
 amination of this important passage ? 
 
 (17.) Phil. iii. 10-15: *'That I may know him, 
 
 II 
 
 ^tll 
 
124 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 
 and the power of his resurrection, and the fellow- 
 ship of his sufferings, being made conformable 
 unto his death ; if by any means I might attain 
 unto the resurrection of the dead. Not as though 
 I had already attained, either were already per- 
 fect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend 
 that for which also I am apprehended of Christ 
 Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have 
 apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting 
 those things which are behind, and reaching 
 forth unto those things which are before, I press 
 toward the mark for the prize of the high calling 
 of God in Christ Jesus. Let us, therefore, as 
 many as be perfect, be thus minded : and if in 
 any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall 
 reveal even this unto you." Upon this passage 
 I remark: 
 
 a. Here is a plain allusion to the Olympic 
 games, in which men ran for a prize, and were 
 not crowned until the end of the race, however 
 well they might run. 
 
 b, Paul speaks of two kinds of perfection here, 
 one of which he claims to havd attained, and the 
 other he had not. The perfection which he had 
 not attained was that which he did not expect to 
 attain until the end of his race, nor indeed until 
 he had attained the resurrection from the dead. 
 Until then, he was not and did not expect to be 
 perfect, in the sense that he should "apprehend 
 all that for which he was apprehended of Christ 
 Jesus." But all this does not imply that he was 
 not living without sin, any more than it implies 
 that Christ was living in sin when he said, ** I 
 must walk to-day and to-morrow, aud the third 
 
 u^ 
 
SANCTiriCATION, 
 
 125 
 
 
 day I shall be perfected." Here Christ speaks 
 of a perfection which he had not attained. 
 
 Now it is manifest that it was the glorified 
 state to which Paul had not attained, and which 
 perfection he was pressing after. But in the fif- 
 teenth verse, he speaks of another kind of per- 
 fection which he professed to have attained. 
 *' Let us therefore," he says, " as many as be 
 perfect, be thus minded ;" that is, let us be press- 
 ing after this high state of perfection in glory, 
 " if by any means we way attain unto the resur- 
 rection of the dead." The figure of the games 
 should be kept continually in mind in the interpre- 
 tation of this passage. The prize in those races 
 was the crown. This was given only at the end 
 of the race. And besides, a man was "not 
 crowned except he run lawfully," that is, accord- 
 ing to rule. Paul was running for the prize, that 
 is, the crown, not as some suppose, for entire 
 sanctification, but for a crown of glory. This 
 he did not expect until he had completed his 
 race. He exhorts those who were perfect, that 
 is, those who were running lawfully or according 
 to rule, to forget the things that were behind, 
 and press to the mark, that is, the goal, for the 
 prize, or the crown of glory which the Lord, the 
 righteous judge, who was witnessing his race to 
 award the crown to the victor, would give him 
 at that day. 
 
 Now it jfe manifest to my mind, that Paul does 
 not in this passage, teach expressly or impliedly 
 that he was living in sin, but the direct opposite 
 — that he meant to say as he had said in many 
 other places, that he was unblamable in respect 
 
 
 
126 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 to 
 
 but that h( 
 
 V 
 
 I; 
 
 'i 
 
 I 
 
 was aspiring after higher at- 
 tainments, and meant to be satisfied with nothing 
 short of eternal glory. 
 
 In relation to the character of Paul, let me say : 
 
 a. If Paul was not sinless, he was an extrava- 
 gant boaster, and such language used by any 
 minister in these days would be considered as 
 the language of an extravagant boaster. 
 
 b. This setting himself up as an example, so 
 frequently and fully, without any caution or 
 qualification, was highly dangerous to the inter- 
 ests of the Church, if he were not in a state of 
 entire sanctification. 
 
 c. It was as wicked as it was dangerous. 
 
 d. His language in appealing to God, that in 
 his life and heart he was blameless, was blasphe- 
 mous, unless he was really what he professed to 
 be ; and if he was what he professed to be, he 
 was in a state of entire sanctification. 
 
 e. There is no reason for doubting his having 
 attained this state. 
 
 /. It is doing dishonor to God, to .naintain, 
 under these circumstances, that Paul had not at- 
 tained the blessing of entire sanctification. 
 
 g. He no where confesses sin after he became 
 an Apostle, but invariably justifies himself, ap- 
 pealing to man and to God, for his entire integri- 
 ty and blamelessness of heart and life. 
 
 h. To accuse him of sin in these circumstances, 
 without evidence, is not only highly injurious to 
 huiiy but disgraceful to the cause of religion. 
 
 i. To charge him with sin, when he claims to 
 have been blameless, is either to accuse him of 
 falsehood or delusion. 
 
SAN(:TlI'irATlON. 
 
 1^7 
 
 k. To maintain the sinfulness of this Apostle, 
 is to deTiy the grace of the gospel, and charge 
 God foolishly. And I cannot but inquire, why 
 is this great effort in the Church to maintain, that 
 Paul lived in sin, and was never wholly sancti- * 
 fied till death ? 
 
 Two things have appeared wonderful to me : 
 
 1. That so many professed Christians should 
 seem to think themselves highly honoring God 
 in extending the claims of the law, and yet cur- 
 tailing and denying that the grace of the gospel 
 is equalito the demands of the law. 
 
 2. That so many persons seem to have an en- 
 tirely self-righteous view of the subject of sanc- 
 tification. With respect to the first of these 
 opinions, much pains have been taken to extend 
 to the utmost the claims of the law of God. 
 Much has been said of its exceeding and infinite 
 strictness, and the great length, and breadth, and 
 height, and depth of its claims. Multitudes are 
 engaged in defending the claims of the law, as 
 if they greatly feared that the purity of the law 
 would be defiled — its strictness and spirituality 
 overlooked — and its high and holy claims set 
 aside, or frittered down somehow to the level of 
 human passion and selfishness. And while en- 
 gaged in their zeal to defend the law, they talk, 
 and preach, and write, as if they supposed it in- 
 dispensable in order to sustain the high claims 
 of the law, to deny the grace and power of the 
 gospel, and its sufficiency to enable human beings 
 to comply with the requisitions of the law. Thus 
 they seem to me, unwittingly, to enter the lists 
 against the grace of Christ, and with the utmost 
 
 vi il 
 
 'f 
 
 .SI 
 
 m 
 
.f i 
 
 
 I'2« 
 
 VIF.WS OF 
 
 I \ 
 
 earnestness and even vehemence, to deny that 
 the grace of Christ is sufficient to overcome sin, 
 and to fulfil in us the righteousness of the law. 
 And in their zeal for the law, they appear to me 
 * either to overlook, or flatly to deny the grace 
 of the gospel. 
 
 Now, let the law be exalted. Let it be mag- 
 nified and made honorable. Let it be shown to 
 be strict, and pure, an5 perfect, as its Author — 
 spread its claims over the whole field of human 
 and angeHc accountability — carry it like a blaze 
 of fire to the deersst recess of every human 
 heart. Exalt it as high as heaven. And thunder 
 its authority and claims to the depths of hell. 
 Stretch out its line upon the universe of mind. 
 And let it, as it well may, and as it ought, thun- 
 der death and terrible damnation against every 
 kind and degree of iniquity. Yet, let it be re- 
 membered forever, that the grace of the gospel, 
 is co-extensive, with the claims of the law. Let 
 no man, therefore, in his strife to maintain the 
 authority of the law, insult the Saviour, exercise 
 unbelief himself, or fritter away and drown the 
 faith of the Church, by holding out the profane 
 idea, that the glorious gospel of the blessed God 
 — sent home and rendered powerful by the effi- 
 cacious application of the Holy Spirit, is not 
 sufficient to fulfil in us **the righteousness of 
 the law," and cause us **to stand perfect and 
 complete in all the will of God." 
 
 With respect to the second thing which ap- 
 pears wonderful to me, viz., that so many seem 
 to have an entirely self-righteous view of the 
 doctrine of sanctification, let me say, that they 
 
SANCrii'lCATlON'. 
 
 129 
 
 that 
 
 n 
 
 
 seem afraid to admit that any are entirely and 
 perfectly sanctihed in this life, lest they shonld 
 flatter hnman pride, seeming to take it for 
 granted that if any are entirely sanctified, they 
 have whereof to glory, as if they had done some- 
 thing, and were in themselves better than others. 
 Whereas, the doctrine of entire sanctification 
 utterly abhors the idea of human merit, disclaims 
 and repudiates it as altogether an abomination 
 to God and to the sanctified soul. This doc- 
 trine as taught in the Bible, and as I understand 
 it, is as far as possible from conniving in the 
 least degree at the idea of any thing naturally 
 good in saints or sinners. It ascribes the whole 
 of salvation and sanctification from first to last, 
 not only till the soul is sanctified, but at every 
 moment while it remains in that state, to the 
 indwelling Spirit, and influence, and grace of 
 Christ. 
 
 Further objections answered : 
 
 3. I will next consider those passages of scrip- 
 ture which are by some supposed to contradict 
 the doctrine we have been considering. 
 
 I. Kings viii. 46: "If they sin against thee, 
 (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou 
 be angry with them, and deliver them to the 
 enemy, so that they carry them away captives 
 unto the land of the enemy, far or near," &c. On 
 this passage, I remark, — 
 
 (i.) That this sentiment in nearly the same 
 language, is repeated in 2 Chron. vi. 26, and in 
 Eccl. vii. 20, where the same original v/ord in the 
 same form is used. 
 
 5 
 
 # 
 
 i! 
 
 I I 
 
 il 
 
.r^ 
 
 U^ 
 
 VIEWS UF 
 
 I !■ 
 
 (2.) These are the strongest passages I know 
 of in the Old Testament, and the same remarks 
 are apphcable to the three. 
 
 (3.) I will quote, for the satisfaction of the 
 reader, the note of Dr. Adam Clarke upon this 
 passage, and also that of Barclay, the celebrated 
 and highly spiritual author of "An Apology for 
 the True Christian Divinity." And let me say, 
 that they appear to me to be satisfactory answers 
 to the objection founded upon these passages. 
 
 Clarke: '**If they sin against thee.' — This 
 must refer to some general defection from truth ; 
 to some species of false worship, idolatry, or cor- 
 ruption of the truth and ordinances of the Most 
 High ; as for it, they are here stated to be delivered 
 into the hands of their enemies, and carried away 
 captive, which was the general punishment of 
 idolatry ; and what is called, [verse 47,] acting 
 perversely and committing wickedness. 
 
 *' * If they sin against thee, for there is no man 
 that sinneth not.' The second clause, as it is 
 here translated, renders the supposition in the 
 first clause, entirely nugatory ; for, if there be no 
 man that sinneth not, it is useless to say, if they 
 sin; butgthis contradiction, is taken away, by refer- 
 ence to the original ki yechetau lak, which should 
 be translated, if they shall sin against thee ; or 
 should they sin against thee, ki ein adam asher lo 
 yecheta; 'for there is no man that may not sin;' 
 that is, there is no man impeccabUy none infallible; 
 none that is not liable to trangress. This is the 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 L.'^- 
 
 ^-«i— 
 
SANCTiriCArioN. 
 
 •3' 
 
 5 I know 
 remarks 
 
 of the 
 pon this 
 iebrated 
 logy for 
 me say, 
 answers 
 ages. 
 
 .' — This 
 truth ; 
 , orcor- 
 le Most 
 ilivered 
 id away 
 nent of 
 acting 
 
 lo man 
 IS it is 
 
 in the 
 3 be no 
 
 fthey 
 r refer- 
 should 
 
 e ; or 
 sher lo 
 
 t sin;* 
 
 Ulible; 
 
 is the 
 
 true nicaninj; of the phrase in various parts of 
 the Bible, and so ourtrimshitors have understood 
 the original, for even in the thirty-first verse of 
 this chapter, they have translated yecheta, if a 
 man trespass ; which certainly implies he mi^ht 
 or mi^ht not do it; and in this way they have 
 translated the sauie W(jrd, if a soul sin in Lev. v. 
 I, and vi. 2: i Sam. ii. 25; 2 Chron. iv. 22 ; and 
 in several other places. The truth is, the Hebrew 
 has no mood to express words in the permissive 
 or optative way, but to express this sense it uses 
 the future tense of the conjugation kal. 
 
 *' This l(;xt has been a wonderful strong-hold 
 for all who believe that there is no redemption 
 from sin in this life ; that liO man can live with- 
 out committing sin ; and that we cannot be en- 
 tirely freed from it till we die. 
 
 1. The text speaks no such doctrine, it only 
 speaks of the possibility of every man's sinning ; 
 and this must be true of a state of probation. 
 
 2. There is not another text in the Divine re- 
 cords that is more to the purpose than this. 
 
 3. The doctrine is flatly in opposition to the 
 design of the gospel ; for Jesus came to save His 
 people from their sins, and to destroy the works 
 of the devil. 
 
 4. It is a dangerous and destructive doctrine, 
 and should be blotted out of every Christian's 
 creed. There are too many who are seeking to 
 excuse their crimes by all means in their power ; 
 and we need not embody their excuses in a creed, 
 to complete their deception, by stating that their 
 sins are unavoidable. 
 
 II 
 
 I, 
 
•rii; 
 
 132 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 i I 
 
 I 1 
 
 i ,1 
 
 Barclay: " Seconclly — Another objection is 
 from two })assages of scripture, much of one 
 signification. The one is i Kings viii. 46: For 
 there is no man that sinneth not. The other is 
 P^ccl. vii. 20: For there is not a just man upon 
 earthy that doeth good, and sinnetJi not. 
 
 *' I answer: i. These affirm nothing of a daily 
 and continual sinning, so as never to be redeemed 
 from it ; but only that all have sinned, or that 
 there is none that doth not sin, though not 
 always, so as never to cease to sin ; and in this 
 lies the question. Yea, in that place of the 
 Kings he speaks within two verses of the return- 
 ing of such with all their souls and hearts ; which 
 implies a possibility of leaving of sin. 2. There 
 is a respect to be had to the seasons and dispen- 
 sations ; for if it should be granted that in Sol- 
 omon's time there were none that sinned not, it 
 will not follow that there are none such now, or 
 that it is a thing not now attainable by the grace 
 of God under the gospel. 3. And lastly, This 
 whole objection hangs upon a false interpreta- 
 tion ; for the original Hebrew word may be read 
 in the Potential Mood, thus, There is 710 man who 
 may not sin, as well as in the Indicative : so both 
 the old Latin, Junius, and Tremellius, and Vata- 
 blus, have it ; and the same word is so used. 
 Psalm cxix. 1 1 : Thy word have I hid in my heart, 
 that I might not sin against thee, in the Potential 
 Mood, and not in the Indicative ; which being 
 more answerable to the universal scope of the 
 scriptures, the testimony of the truth, and the 
 sense of almost all interpreters, doubtless ought 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 133 
 
 » 
 
 to be so understood, and the other interpretation 
 rejected as spurious.'' 
 
 (4.) Whatever may be thought of the views of 
 these authors, to me, it is a plain and satisfac- 
 tory answer to the objection founded upon these 
 passages, that the objection might be strictly 
 true under the Old Testament dispensation, and 
 prove nothing in regard to the attainability of a 
 state of entire sanctification under the New. 
 What, does the New Testament dispensation 
 differ nothing from the Old in its advantages for 
 the acquisition of holiness ? If it be true that no 
 one under the comparatively dark dispensation 
 of Judaism, attained a state of entire and perma- 
 nent sanctification, d^^es that prove such a state 
 unattainable under the gospel ? It is expressly 
 stated in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that " the 
 Old Covenant made nothing perfect, but the 
 bringing in of a better hope did." Under the 
 Old Covenant, God expressly promised that He 
 would make a new one with the House oi Israel 
 in *' writing the law in their hearts," and in " en- 
 graving it in their inward parts." And this New 
 Covenant was to be made with the house of 
 Israel, under the Christian dispensation. What 
 then do all such passages in the Old Testament 
 prove in relation to the privileges and holiness of 
 Christians under the New dispensation ? 
 
 (5.) Whether any of the Old Testament saints 
 did so far receive the New Covenant by way of 
 anticipation, as to enter upon a state of entire 
 and permanent sanctification, it is not my present 
 purpose to inquire. Nor will I inquire, whether^ 
 
 
 t I 
 
 «r if 
 
•r^a. 
 
 h 
 
 I 
 
 134 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 admitting that Solomon said in his day, that 
 "there was not a just man upon the earth that 
 liveth and sinneth not," the same could with 
 equal truth have been assorted of every genera- 
 tion under the Jewish dispe.isation? 
 
 (6.) It is expressly assertiid of Abraham and 
 multitudes of the Old Testament saints, that they 
 " died in faith, not having received the promises." 
 Now, what can this mean? It cannot be that 
 they did not know the promises, for to them the 
 promises were made. It cannot mean that they 
 did not. receive Christ, lor the Bible expressl)'^ 
 asserts that they did, — that "Abraham rejoiced 
 to see Christ's day," — that Moses, and indeed all 
 the Old Testament saints, had so much know- 
 ledge of Christ, as a Saviour to be revealed, as 
 to bring them into a state of salvation. But still 
 they did not receive the promise of the Spirit as 
 it is poured out under the Christian dispensation. 
 This was the great thing all along promised, first 
 to Abraham, or to his seed, which is Christ. Gal. 
 iii. 14-16: "That the blessing of Abraham might 
 come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ: that 
 we might receive the promise of the Spirit through 
 faith." "Now, to Abraham and his seed were 
 the promises made. He saith not. And to seeds, 
 as of many ; but as of one, and to thy seed, which 
 is Christ." And afterwards to the Christian 
 Church, by all the prophets. Acts ii. 16-21 : "But 
 this is that which was spoken by the prophet 
 Joel: And it shall come to pass in the last days, 
 (saith God,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all 
 flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall 
 prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, 
 
1 i 
 
 SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 ^35 
 
 1 
 
 ! 
 
 and your old men shall dream dreams : and on 
 my servants and on my handmaidens 1 will pour 
 out in those days of my Spirit ; and they shall 
 prophesy: and I will show wonders in heaven 
 above, and signs in the earth beneath ; blood, 
 and fire, and vapor of smoke : tlie sun shall be 
 turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, 
 before that great and notable day of the Lord 
 come: and it shall come to pass that whosoever 
 shall call on the name * f the Lord shall be saved." 
 Acts ii. 38-39: "Then Peter said unto them. 
 Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the 
 name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, 
 and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 
 For the promise is unto you, and to your chil- 
 dren, and to all that are afar off, even as many 
 as the Lord our God shall call." Acts iii. 24-26: 
 '* Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel, and 
 those that follow after, as many as have spoken, 
 have likewise foretold of these days." "Unto 
 you first, God, having raised up his Son Jesus, 
 sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one 
 of you from his iniquities." And lastly by Christ 
 himself, which He expressly styles the promise of 
 the Father. Acts i. 4-5: "And being assembled 
 together with them, commanded them that they 
 should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for 
 the promise of the Father, which, saith He, ye 
 have heard of Me. For John truly baptized with 
 water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy 
 Ghost not many days hence." They did not 
 receive the light and the glory of the Christian 
 dispensation, nor the fulness of the Holy Spirit. 
 And it is asserted in the Bible that " they with- 
 
 III 
 
 I •; 
 
 4i>i ' 
 
 n 
 
 i ! 
 
 ' 1 
 
'36 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 . 
 
 m 
 
 ■, (' . 1 
 
 V 
 
 out US," that is, without our privileges, '* could 
 not be made perfect." 
 
 2. The next objection is founded upon the 
 Lord's Prayer. In this, Christ has taught us to 
 pray, '' Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive 
 those who trespass against us." Here it is ob- 
 jected that if a person should become entirely 
 sanctified, he could no longer use this clause of 
 this prayer, which it is said, was manifestly de- 
 signed to be used by the Church to the end of 
 time. Upon this prayer I remark : 
 
 (i.) Christ has taught us to pray for entire and 
 permanent sanctification. "Thy will be done on 
 earth as it is done in heaven." 
 
 (2.) He designed that we should expect this 
 prayer to be answered, or that we should mock 
 God by asking what we do not believe is agree- 
 able to his will, and that too which we know 
 could not consistently be granted ; and that we 
 are to repeat this insult to God as often as we 
 pray. 
 
 (3.) The petition for forgiveness of our tres- 
 passes it is plain, must apply to past sins, and 
 not to sins we are committing at the time we 
 make the prayer; for it would be absurd and 
 abominable to pray for the forgiveness of a sin 
 which we were then in the act of comnnitting. 
 
 (4.) This prayer cannot properly be made in 
 respect to any sin of which we have not repented ; 
 for it would be highly abominable in the sight of 
 God, to pray for the forgiveness of a sin of which 
 we did not repent. 
 
 (5.) If there be any hour or day in which a 
 
 **^ 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 ^37 
 
 
 man has committed no actual sin, lie could not 
 consistently make this prayer in reference to that 
 hour or that day. 
 
 (6.) But at that very time, it would be highly 
 proper for him to make this prayer in relation to 
 all his past sins, and that too although he may 
 have repented of and confessed them and prayed 
 for their forgiveness, a thousand times before. 
 
 (7.) And although his sins may be forgiven, he 
 ought still to feel penitent in view of them — to 
 repent of them both in this world and in the 
 world to come as often as he remembers them. 
 And it is perfectlv suitable, so long as he lives in 
 the world, to say the least, to repent and repeat 
 the request for forgiveness. For myself, I am 
 unable to see why this passage should be made a 
 stumbhng block ; for if it be improper to pray 
 for the forgiveness of past sins of which we have 
 repented, then it is improper to pray for forgive- 
 ness at all. And if this prayer cannot be used 
 with propriety in reference to past sins of which 
 we have already repented, it cannot properly be 
 used at all, except upon the absurd supposition, 
 that we are to pray for the forgiveness of sins 
 which we are now committing, and of which we 
 have not repented. And if it be improper to use 
 this form of prayer in reference to all past sins 
 of which we have repented, it is just as improper 
 to use it in reference to sins committed to-day or 
 yesterday, of which we have repented. 
 
 3. Another objection is founded on James iii. 
 1,2: *' My brethren, be not many masters, know- 
 ing that we shall receive the greater condemna- 
 
 '■' ' 'I 
 
 n n \ 
 
 ^ii 
 
 . ( 
 
 
mfJi 
 
 I ' 
 
 I* 
 
 138 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 tion. For in many things we offend all. If any 
 man offend not in word, the same is a perfect 
 man, and able also to bridle the whole body." 
 Upon this passage I remark: 
 
 (i.) The term rendered masters here, may be 
 rendered teachers, critics, or censors, and be un- 
 derstood either in a good or bad sense. The 
 Apostle exhorts the brethren not to be many mas- 
 ters, because if they are so they will incur the 
 greater condemnation ; "for," says he, "in many 
 thmgs we offend all." The fact that we all 
 offend is here urged as a reason why we should 
 not be many masters ; which shows that the term 
 masters is here used in a bad sense. "Be not 
 many masters," for if we are masters, "we shall 
 receive the greater condemnation," because we 
 are all great offenders. Now I understand this 
 to be the simple meaning of this passage j do not 
 many [or any] of you become censors, or critics, 
 and set yourselves up to j udge and condemn others. 
 For in as unich as you have all sinned yourselves, 
 and we are all great offenders, we shall receive 
 the greater condemnation, if we set ourselves up 
 as censors. "For with what judgment ye judge, 
 ye shall be judged, and with what measure ye 
 mete, it shall be measured to you again." 
 
 (2.) It does not appear to me that the Apostle 
 designs to affix m any thing at all of the present 
 character of himself or of those to whom he 
 wrote ; nor to have had the remotest allusion to 
 the doctrine of entire sanctification, but simply 
 to affirm a well established truth in its applica- 
 tion to a particular sin ; that if they became 
 censors, and injuriously condemned others, inas- 
 
i' 
 
 SANXTIFICATION. 
 
 139 
 
 much as they had all committed many sins, they 
 should receive the greater condemnation. 
 
 (3.) That the Apostle did not design to deny 
 the doctrine of Christian perfection or entire 
 sanctification, as maintained in this treatise, 
 seems evident from the fact that he immediately 
 subjoins, "If any man offend not in word, the 
 same is a perfect man and able also to bridle the 
 whole body." 
 
 4. Another objection is founded upon i John 
 i. 8: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive 
 ourselves, and the truth is not in us " Upon this 
 I remark: 
 
 (i.) Those who make this passage an objection 
 to the doctrine of entire sanctification in this 
 life assume that the Apostle is here speaking of 
 sanctification instead of justification, whereas an 
 honest examination of the passage, if I mistake 
 not, will render it evident that the Apostle makes 
 no allusion here to sanctification, but is speaking 
 solely of justification. A little attention to the 
 connection in which this verse stands, will I think 
 render this evident. But before I proceed to 
 state what I understand to be the meaning of 
 this passage, let us consider it in the connection 
 in which it stands, in the sense in which they 
 understand it who quote it for the purpose of 
 opposing the sentiment advocated in this dis- 
 course. They understand the Apostle as affirm- 
 ing that if we say we are in a state of entire 
 sanctification and do not sin, we deceive ourselves 
 and the truth is not in us. Now if this were the 
 Apostle's meaning, he involves himself in this 
 gonnection in two flat contradictions. 
 
 M 
 
140 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 I 
 
 *m±i 
 
 (2.) This verse is immediately preceded by the 
 assertion that " the blood of Jesus Christ cleans- 
 eth us from all sin." Now it would be very re- 
 markable, if immediately after this assertion, the 
 Apostle should mean to say, (as they suppose he 
 did,) that it does not cleanse us from all sin, and 
 if we say it does, we deceive ourselves. For he 
 had just assumed that the blood of Jesus Christ 
 does cleanse us from all sin. If this were his 
 meaning it involves him in as palpable a contra- 
 diction as could be expressed. 
 
 (3.) This view of the subject then represents 
 the Apostle in the conclusion of the seventh verse, 
 as saying, the blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, 
 cleanseth us from all sin. And in the eight 
 verse, as saying, that if we suppose ourselves to 
 be cleansed from all sin, we deceive ourselves, 
 thus flatly contradicting what he had just said. 
 And in the ninth verse he goes on to say that He 
 is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to 
 cleanse us from all unrighteousness, that is, the 
 blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin. 
 But if we say it does, we deceive ourselves. But 
 if we confess our sins He is faithful and just to 
 forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all un- 
 righteousness. Now all unrighteousness is sin. 
 If we are cleansed from all unrighteousness, we 
 are cleansed from sin. And now suppose a man 
 should confess his sin, and God should in faith- 
 fulness and justice forgive his sin and cleanse 
 him from all unrighteousness, and then he should 
 confess and profess that God had done this, are 
 we to understand that the Apostle would then 
 affirm that he deceives himself in supposing that 
 
 Li, 
 
I 
 I 
 
 SANCTII'ICATION. 
 
 141 
 
 the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth him from all 
 sin ? 
 
 But as I have already said, I do not understand 
 the Apostle as affirming anything in respect to 
 the present moral character of any one, but as 
 speaking of the doctrine of justification. In the 
 tenth verse. He appears to affirm over again what 
 he had said in the eighth. It we say that we 
 have not sinned, we make him a liar. 
 
 This then appears to me to be the meaning of 
 the whole passage. If we say that we are not 
 sinners, that is, have no sin to need the blood of 
 Christ, that we have never sinned, and conse- 
 quently need no Saviour, we deceive ourselves. 
 For we have sinned, and nothing but the blood 
 of Christ cleanseth us from sin, or procures our 
 pardon and justification. And now, if we will 
 not deny but confess that we have sinned, " He 
 is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to 
 cleanse us from all unrighteousness." " But if 
 we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a 
 liar, and His word is not in us.'' 
 
 5. It has been objected to the view I have given 
 of Jer. xxxi. 31 — 34, that if that passage is to 
 be considered as a promise of entire sanctifica- 
 tion, this proves too much. Inasmuch as it is 
 said, " they shall all know the Lord from the 
 least to the greatest," therefore, says the objector, 
 it would prove that all the Church has been in a 
 state of entire sanctification ever since the com- 
 mencement of the New Testament dispensation. 
 To this objection I answer: 
 
 (i.) I have already, I trust, shown that this 
 promise is conditioned upon faith, and that the 
 
 Ui 
 
 ,^" 
 
142 
 
 VIKWS <^F 
 
 
 i 
 
 blessiiif^ cannot possibly be received but by faith. 
 
 (2.) It is doubtless true that many have received 
 this covenant in its fulness. 
 
 (3.) A promise may be unconditional or abso- 
 lute, and certain of a fulfilment in relation to the 
 whole Church as a body in some period of its 
 history, which is, nevertheless, conditional in 
 relation to its application to any particular indi- 
 viduals or generation of individuals. 
 
 (4.J I think it is in entire keeping with the 
 propnecies to understand this passage as express- 
 ly promising to the Church a day, when all her 
 members shall be sanctified, and when " Holiness 
 to the Lord shall be written upon the bells of the 
 horses." Indeed it appears to be abundantly 
 foretold that the Church, as a body, shall, in this 
 world, enter into a state of entire sanctification, 
 in some period of her history; and that this will 
 be the carrying out of these promises of the New 
 Covenant, of which we are speaking. But it is 
 by no means an objection to this view of the 
 subject, that all the Church have not yet entered 
 into this state. 
 
 It has been maintained that this promise in 
 
 teremiah has been fulfilled already. This has 
 een argued, 
 
 (I.) From the fact that the promise has no 
 condition, expressed or implied, and the respon- 
 sibility therefore rests with God. 
 
 (2.) That the Apostle in his epistle to the 
 Hebrews, quotes it as to be fulfilled at the advent 
 of Christ. Now, to this I answer. 
 
 It might as well be argued that all the rest of 
 the promises and prophecies relating to the gos- 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 143 
 
 pel day were fulfilled, because the time had come 
 when the promise was due. Suppose it were 
 deuied that the world would ever he converted, 
 or that there ever would be any more piety in 
 the world than there has been and is at present ; 
 and when the promises and prophecies respecting 
 the latter day glory, and the conversion of the 
 world, should be adduced in proof that the world 
 is to be converted, it should be replied that these 
 promises had already been fulfilled — that they 
 were unconditional — and that the advent of the 
 Messiah was the time when they became due. 
 But suppose, that in answer to this, it should be 
 urged that nothing has ever yet occurred in the 
 history of this world that seems at all to have 
 come up to the meaning of these promises and 
 prophecies — thSt the world has never been in the 
 state which seems to be plainly described in these 
 promises and prophecies — and that it cannot be 
 that any thing the world has yet experienced is 
 what is meant by such language as is used in the 
 Bible in relation to the future state of the world. 
 Now, suppose to this it should be replied, that 
 the event has shown what the promises and 
 prophecies really meant — that we are to interpret 
 the language by the fact — that as the promises 
 and prophecies were unconditional, and the 
 gospel day has really co* \e when they were to 
 be fulfilled, we certainly know, whatever their 
 language may be, that they meant nothing more 
 than what the world has already realized ? This 
 would be precisely like the reasoning of some 
 persons in relation to Jer. xxxi. 31 — 34. They 
 say. 
 
 a. The promises are without condition. 
 
 ii 
 
 ,f r 
 
 I 
 
•ri 
 
 M4 
 
 VI l:\vs of 
 
 . ', 
 
 b. The time has come for their fulfilment. 
 Therefore the world has realized their fulfilment, 
 and all that was intended by them ; that the facts 
 in the case settle the question of construction 
 and interpnjtadon ; and we know that they never 
 intended to promise a state of entire sanctifica- 
 tion, because as a matter of fact no such state has 
 be(m realized by the Church. Indeed! Then the 
 Bible is the most hyperbolical, not to say ridicu- 
 lous book in the universe. If what the world has 
 seen in regard to the extension and universal pre- 
 valence of the Redeemer's kingdom, is all that 
 the promises relating to these events really mean, 
 then the i^ible of all books in the world is the 
 most calculated to deceive mankind. But who, 
 after all, in the exercise of his sober senses, will 
 admit any such reasoning as this? Who does not 
 know, or may not know, if he will use his com- 
 mon sense, that although these promises and 
 prophecies are unconditionally expressed, yet 
 that they areas a matter of fact really conditioned 
 upon a right exercise of human agency, and that 
 a time is to come when the world shall be con- 
 verted; and that the conversion of the world 
 implies in itself a vastly higher state of religious 
 feeling and action in the Church, than has for 
 centuries, or perhaps ever been witnessed — and 
 that the promise of the New Covenant is still to 
 be fulfilled in a higher sense than it ever has 
 been ? If any man doubts this, I must believe 
 that he does not understand his Bible. 
 
 Faith, then, is an indispensable condition of 
 the fulfilment of all promises of spiritual bless- 
 ings, the reception of which involves the exercise 
 of our agency. 
 
SANCnUCATIUN. 
 
 H5 
 
 Again, it is not a little curious, that those who 
 give this interpretation to these promises /;//n/,'"/w<? 
 that they s(;e a very close connection, if not an 
 absolute identity of our views with those of 
 modern Antinomian Perfectionists. Now it is 
 of importance to remark, that this is one of the 
 leading j)eculiarities of that sect. They [the 
 Antinomian Perfectionists] insist that these are 
 promises without condition, and that consequent- 
 ly their own watchfulness, prayers, exertions, and 
 the right exercise of their own agency, are not 
 at all to be taken into the account in the matter 
 of their j)erseverance in holiness — that the res- 
 ponsibility is thrown entirely upon Christ, inas- 
 much as his promises are without condition. 
 The thing that he has promised, say they, is, 
 that without any c(;ndition, he will keep them in 
 a state of eritire sanctification — that therefore, 
 for them to confess sin, is to accuse Christ of 
 breaking his promises. For them to make any 
 efforts at perseverance in holiness is to set aside 
 the gospel and go back to the law. For them 
 even to fear that they shall sin, is to fear that 
 Christ will tell a lie. 
 
 The fact is that this, and their setting aside 
 the moral law, are the two great errors of their 
 whole system. It would be easy to show that the 
 adoption of this sentiment, that these promises 
 are without condition, expressed or implied, has 
 led to some of their most fanatical and absurd 
 opinions and practices. They take the ground 
 that no conditi )n is expressed, and that therefore 
 none is implied ; overlooking the fact, that the 
 very nature of the thing promised, implies that 
 
 9 
 
 I 
 
 M 
 
I! ! 
 
 146 
 
 VIFAVS OF 
 
 :j 
 
 i 
 
 faith is the condition upon which its fulfilment 
 must depend. It is hoped therefore, that our 
 brethren who charge us with perfectionism, will 
 be led to see that to tliemselves, and not to us, 
 does this charge belor^g. 
 
 These are the principal passages that occur to 
 my mind, and those I believe upon which the 
 principal stress has been laid by the opposers of 
 this doctrine. And as I do not wish to protract 
 the discussion, I shall omit the examination of 
 other passages, as I design at a future time ta 
 answer such objections as may seem to be of 
 weight. This 1 design to do without either the 
 spirit or form of controversy, noticing and ans- 
 wering such objections as may from time to time 
 occur to my own mind, or as may be suggested 
 by others. 
 
 There are many objections to the doctrine of 
 entire sanctification, besides those derived from 
 the passages of scripture which I have consider- 
 ed. Some of these objections are doubtless hon- 
 estly felt, and deserve to be considered. I will 
 then proceed to notice such of them as now occur 
 to my mind. 
 
 6. It is objected that the doctrine of entire and 
 permanent sanctification in this life, tends to the 
 error*' of modern perfectionism. This objection 
 has bt;en urged by some good men, and, I doubt 
 not^ honestly urged. But still I cannot believe 
 that they have duly considered the matter. It 
 seems to me that one fact will set aside this objec- 
 tion. It lb well known that theWesleyan Meth- 
 odists have, ac a denomination, from the earliest 
 period of their history, maintained this doctrine 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 147 
 
 in all its length and breadth. Now if such is the 
 tendenc}' of the doctrine, it is passing strange 
 that this tendency has never developed itself in 
 that denomination. So far as I can learn, the 
 Methodists haVe been in a great measure if not 
 entirely exempt from the errors held by modern 
 perfectionists. Perfectionists, as a body, and I 
 believe with very few exceptions, have arisen out 
 of those denominations that deny the doctrine of 
 entire sanctification in this life. 
 
 Now the reason of this is obvious to my mind. 
 When professors of Religion, who have been all 
 their life subject to bondage, begin to inquire 
 earnestly for deliverance from their sins, they 
 have found neither sympathy nor instruction in 
 regard to the prospect of getting rid of them in 
 this life. Then they have gone to the Bible, and 
 there found, in almost every part of it, Christ 
 presented as a Saviour from their sins. But when 
 they proclaim this truth, they are at once treated 
 as heretics and fanatics by their brethren, until, 
 being overcome of evil, they fall into censorious- 
 ness ; and finding the Church so decidedly and 
 utterly wrong, in her opposition to this one great 
 important truth, they lose confidence in their 
 ministers and the Church, and, being influenced 
 by a wrong spirit, Satan takes the advantage of 
 them, and drives them to the extreme of error 
 and delusion. This I believe to be the true his- 
 tory of many of the most pious members of the 
 Calviristic churches. On the contrary, the Meth- 
 odists are very much secured against these errors. 
 They are taught that Jesus Christ is a Saviour 
 from all sin in this world. And when they in- 
 
 K 1 
 
 
,!■ 
 
 1 
 
 
 148 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 II ^ 
 
 ,1 
 
 quire for deliverance, they are pointed to Jesus 
 Christ as a present and all-sufficient Redeemer. 
 Finding sympathy and instruction on this great 
 and agonizing point, their confidence in their 
 ministers and their brethren remains, and they 
 walk quietly with them. 
 
 It seems to me impossible that the tendency of 
 this doctrine should be to the peculiar errors of 
 the modern perfectionists, and yet not an instance 
 occur among all the Methodist ministers, or the 
 thousands of their members, for one hundred 
 years. 
 
 And here let me say, that it is my full convic- 
 tion, that th^^re are but two ways in which minis- 
 ters of the present day can prevent members of 
 their churches from becoming perfectionists. One 
 is, to suffer them to hve so far from God, that 
 they will not inquire after holiness of heart ; and 
 the other is, most fully to inculcate the glorious 
 doctrine of entire consecration, and that it is the 
 high privilege as well as the duty of Christians, 
 to live in a state of entire co» ^ecration to God. 
 
 I can say from my own experience, that since 
 I have understood and fully taught the doctrine 
 as I now hold it, I see no tendency among those 
 who listen to my instructions to these errors, 
 while in churches not far distant, where the 
 doctrine which we inculcate here is opposed, 
 there seems to be a constant tendency among 
 their most pious people to Antinomian perfec- 
 tionism. How can this be accounted for on any 
 other principle than the one above stated? I can 
 truly say that those persons here, who have been 
 the first to lay hold on (he dogtrinq of entire 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 H9 
 
 M 
 
 Jesus 
 
 semer. 
 
 great 
 
 their 
 
 i they 
 
 icy of 
 :)rs of 
 tance 
 r the 
 idred 
 
 nvic- 
 linis- 
 rs of 
 
 One 
 
 that 
 
 and 
 "ious 
 5 the 
 ans, 
 ;d. 
 ince 
 rine 
 lose 
 ors, 
 the 
 ied, 
 >ng 
 ec- 
 iny 
 ;an 
 ten 
 ire 
 
 sanctification in this life, and who give the 
 highest evidence of enjoying the blessing of 
 present sanctification have been at the farthest 
 remove from the errors of the modern perfection- 
 ists. I might state a great many facts upon this 
 subject, but, for the sake of brevity, I omit them. 
 
 But, aside from the facts, what is the founda- 
 tion of all the errors of the modern perfectionists ? 
 Every one who has examined them knows that 
 they may be summed up in this, the abrogation 
 of the moral law. And now I would humbly 
 inquire, what possible tendency can there be to 
 their errors, if the moral law be preserved in the 
 system of truth? In these days a man is culpa- 
 bly ignorant of that class of people, who does 
 not know that the ' head and front of the offend- 
 ing,' and falling, is the setting aside of the law of 
 God. The setting aside of the Christian ordin- 
 ances of baptism and the Lord's supper, proceeds 
 upon the same principle, and manifestly grows 
 out of the abrogation of the law of God. But re- 
 tain the law of God, as the Methodists have done, 
 and as other denominations have done, who, from 
 the days of the Reformation, have maintained 
 this same doctrine, and there is certainly no 
 tendency to Antinomian perfectionism. 
 
 I have many things to say upon the tendency 
 of this doctrine, but at present this must suffice. 
 
 By some it is said to be identical with Perfec- 
 tionism ; and attempts are made to show in what 
 particulars Antinomian Perfectionism and our 
 views are the same. On this I remark: 
 
 (i.) It seems to have been a favorite policy of 
 certain controversial writers for a long time, in- 
 
 jl^l 
 
 f ^ 
 
150 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 I!' 
 
 I 
 
 Bi ^ !i 
 
 stead of meeting a proposition in the open field 
 of fair and Christian argument, to give it a bad 
 name, and attempt to put it down, not by force 
 of argument, but by showing that it is identical 
 with or sustains a near relation to Pelagianism, 
 Antinomianism, Calvinism, or some other ism, 
 against which certain classes of minds are deeply 
 prejudiced. In the recent controversy between 
 what are called Old and New School Divines, 
 who has not witnessed with pain the frequent 
 attempts that have been made to put down the 
 New School Divinity, as it is called, by calling 
 it Pelagianism, and quoting certam passages 
 from Pelagius, and other writers, to show the 
 identity of sentiment that exists between them. 
 
 This is a very unsatisfactory method of attack- 
 ing or defending any doctrine. There are, no 
 doubt, many points of agreement between Pela- 
 gius and all truly orthodox divines, and so there 
 are many points of disagreement between them. 
 There are also many points of agreement be- 
 r 'een modern Perfectionists and all Evangelical 
 Christians, and so there are many points of dis- 
 agreement between them and the Christian 
 Church in general. That there are some points 
 of agreement between their views and my own, 
 is no doubt true. And that we totally disagree 
 in regard to those points that constitute their 
 great peculiarities, is, if I understand them, also 
 true. 
 
 But did I really agree in all points with Augus- 
 tine or Edwards, or Pelagius, or the modern Per- 
 fectionists, neither the good nor the ill name of 
 any of these would prove my sentiments to be 
 
 th 
 
 vil 
 
 oi 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 151 
 
 Open fieJd 
 e it a bad 
 t by force 
 > identical 
 agianism, 
 >ther ism, 
 ire deeply 
 " between 
 Divines, 
 frequent 
 down tha 
 •y calling 
 passages 
 how the 
 -n them, 
 f attack- 
 are, no 
 en Pela- 
 so there 
 -n them, 
 lent be- 
 ngehcal 
 J of dis- 
 hristian 
 points 
 ly own, 
 isagree 
 e their 
 m, also 
 
 ^ugus- 
 
 'n Per- 
 
 ime of 
 
 to be 
 
 
 either right or wrong. It would remain after all, 
 to show that those with whom I agreed were 
 either right or wrong, in order on the one hand, 
 to establish that tor which 1 contend, or on the 
 other, to overthrow that which I maintain. It is 
 often more convenient to give a doctrine or an 
 argument a bad name, than it is soberly and sat- 
 isfactory to reply to it. 
 
 (2.) It is not a little curious that we should be 
 charged with holding the same sentiments with 
 the Perfectionists ; and yet they seem to be more 
 violently opposed to our views, since they have 
 come to understand them, than almost any other 
 persons whatever. I have been informed by one 
 of their leaders, that he regards me as one of the 
 master-builders of Babylon. And I also under- 
 stand that they manifest greater hostility to the 
 Oberlin Evangelist than almost any other class 
 of persons. 
 
 (3.) I will not take time, nor is it needful, to 
 go into an investigation or a denial even of the 
 supposed or alleged points of agreement be- 
 tween us and the Perfectionists. But for the 
 present it must be sufficient to request you to 
 read and examine for yourselves. 
 
 With respect to the modern Perfectionists, 
 those who have been acquainted with their writ- 
 ings, know that some of them have gone much 
 farther from the truth than others. Some of 
 their leading men, who commenced with them 
 and adopted their name, stopped far short of 
 adopting some of their most abominable errors; 
 still mamtaining the authority and perpetual 
 obligation of the moral law ; and thus have been 
 
 IM II 
 
152 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 saved from going into many of the most objec- 
 tionable and destructive notions of the sect. 
 There are many more points of agreement be- 
 tween that class of Perfectionists and the ortho- 
 dox church, than between any other class of 
 them and the Christian Church. And there are 
 still a number of important points of difference, 
 as every one knows who is possessed of correct 
 information upon this subject. 
 
 I abhor the practice of denouncing whole 
 classes of men for the errors of some of that 
 name. I am well aware that there are many of 
 those who are termed Perfectionists, who as 
 truly abhor the extremes of error into which 
 many of that name have fallen, as perhaps do 
 any persons living. 
 
 7. Another objection is, that persons could not 
 live in this world, if they were entirely sanctified. 
 Strange ! Does holiness injure a man ? Does 
 perfect conformity to all the laws of life and 
 health, both physical and moral, render it impos- 
 sible for a man to live ? If a man break off from 
 rebellion against God, will it kill him ? Does 
 there appear to have been any thing in Christ's 
 holiness inconsistent with life and health ? 
 The fact is, that this objection is founded in a 
 gross mistake in regard to what constitutes entire 
 sanctification. It is supposed by those who hold 
 this objection, that this state implies a continual 
 and most intense degree of excitement, and of 
 many of those things which I have shown in a 
 former part of this discourse are not at all implied 
 in it. I have thought, that it is rather a glorified 
 than a sanctified state, that most men have be- 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 nost objec- 
 ^ the sect. 
 ?ement be- 
 the ortho- 
 Jr class of 
 1 there are 
 difference, 
 of correct 
 
 ^g whole 
 le of that 
 J many of 
 , who as 
 ito which 
 >rhaps do 
 
 could not 
 anctified. 
 ? Does 
 life and 
 it impos- 
 off from 
 ? Does 
 Christ's 
 health ? 
 ed in a 
 's entire 
 ho hold 
 >ntinual 
 and of 
 ^vn in a 
 mplied 
 lorified 
 ive be- 
 
 153 
 
 fore their minds whenever they consider this 
 subject. When Christ was upon earth, he was 
 in a sanctified but not in a glorified slate. " It 
 is enough for the disciple that he be as his 
 Master." Now what is there in the moral charac- 
 ter of Jesus Christ, as represented in his history, 
 aside from his miraculous powers, that may not 
 and ought not to be fully copied into the life of 
 every Christian ? I speak not of his knowledge, 
 but of his spirit and temper. Ponder well every 
 circumstance of his life that has come down to 
 us, and say, beloved, what is there in it, that 
 may not, by the grace ox God, be copied into 
 your own ? And think you, that a full imitation 
 of him in all that relates to his moral character 
 would render it impossible for you to live in this 
 world ? 
 
 8. Again, it is objected against our professing 
 a state of entire sanctification, that it not only 
 implies present obedience to the law of God, but 
 such a formation and perfection of holy habits, 
 as to render it certain that we shall never again 
 sin. And that a mkn can no more tell when he 
 is entirely sanctified, than he can tell how many 
 holy acts it will take to form holy habits of such 
 strength that he will never again sin. To this I 
 answer; 
 
 (I.) The law of God has. nothing to do with 
 requiring this formation of holy habits. It is 
 satisfied with present obedience, and only de- 
 mands at every present moment, the full devotion 
 of all our powers to God. It never, in any 
 instance, complains that we have not formed 
 such holy habits that we shall sin no more. 
 
 r 
 
 ' 
 
VIEWS OF 
 
 (2.) If it be true that a man is not entirely 
 sanctified until his holy habits are so fixed, as to 
 render it certain that he will never sin ac^ain, 
 then Adam was not in a state of entire sanctifica- 
 tion previously to the fall, nor were the angels in 
 this state before their fall. 
 
 ) If this objection be true, there is not a 
 saint nor an angel in heaven, so far as we can 
 know, that can with the least propriety profess a 
 state of entire sanctification ; for how can they 
 know that they have performed so many holy 
 acts, as to have created such habits of holiness 
 as to render it certain that they will never sin 
 again. 
 
 (4.) Entire and continued sanctification does 
 not depend upon the formation of holy habits, 
 nor at all consist in this. But both entire and 
 permanent sanctification are based alone upon 
 the grace of God in Jesus Christ. Perseverance 
 in holiness is to be ascribed entirely to the influ- 
 ence of the indwelling Spirit of Christ, both now 
 and to the end of our lives, instead of being 
 secured at all by any habits of holiness which 
 we may or ever shall have formed. 
 
 9. Another objection is, that the doctrine tends 
 to spiritual pride. And is it true indeed that to 
 become perlectly humble tends to pride? But 
 entire humility is implied in entire sanctification. 
 Is it true that you must remain in sin, and, of 
 course, cherish pride in order to avoid pride? Is 
 your humility more safe in your own hands, and 
 are you more secure against spiritual pride in 
 refusing to receive Christ as your helper, than 
 
 (I 
 of 
 pui 
 gei 
 
 gO( 
 

 SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 155 
 
 >t entirely 
 xed, as to 
 sin a^aiii, 
 sanctifica- 
 angeJs in 
 
 is not a 
 
 IS we can 
 
 profess a 
 
 can they 
 
 any holy 
 
 iiohness 
 
 never sin 
 
 :ion does 
 y habits, 
 iitire and 
 ne upon 
 sverance 
 he influ- 
 >oth now 
 ^i being 
 
 >£> 
 
 which 
 
 nie tends 
 ' that to 
 ? But 
 ication. 
 and, of 
 ide? Is 
 ds, and 
 •ride in 
 :r, than 
 
 you would be in at once embracing Him as a full 
 Saviour? 
 
 10. Again, it is objected that many who have 
 embraced this doctrine, really are spiritually 
 proud. To this I answer: 
 
 (i.) So have many who believed the doctrine 
 of regeneration been deceived and amazinglj' 
 puffed up with the idea that they have been re- 
 generated when they have not. But is this a 
 good reason for abandoning the doctrine of re- 
 generation, or any reason why the doctrine 
 should not be preached ? 
 
 (2.) Let me inquire, whether a simple declara- 
 tion of what God has done for their souls, has 
 not been assumed as itself sufficient evidence of 
 spiritual pride on the part of those who embrace 
 this doctrine, while there was in reality no spirit- 
 ual pride at all? It seems next to impossible, 
 with ihh present views of the Church, that an 
 individual should really attain this state, and 
 profess it in a manner so humble as not, of course, 
 to be suspected of enormous spiritual pride ? This 
 consideration has been a snare to some who have 
 hesitated and even neglected to declare what 
 God has done for their souls, lest they should be 
 accused of spiritual pride. And this has been a 
 serious injury to their piety. 
 
 11. But, again, it is objected that this doctrine 
 tends to censoriousness. To this I reply: 
 
 (i.) It is not denied that some who have pro- 
 fessed to believe this doctrine have become 
 censorious. But this no more condemns this 
 doctrine than > condemns that of regeneration. 
 And that it tends to censoriousness, might just 
 
 'I > 
 
156 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 as well be urged against every acknowledged 
 doctrine of the Bible as against this doctrine. 
 
 (2.) Let any Christian do his whole duty to 
 the Church and the world in their present state — 
 let him speak to them and of them as they really 
 are; and he would of course incur the charge of 
 censoriousness. It is therefore the most unrea- 
 sonable thing in the world to suppose that the 
 Church, in its present state, would not accuse 
 any perfect Christian of censoriousness. Entire 
 sanctification implies the doing of all our duty. 
 But to do all our duty, we must rebuke sin in 
 high places and in low places. Can this be done 
 with all needed severity, without in many cases 
 giving offence and incurring the charge of censo- 
 riousness ? No; it is impossible; and to main- 
 tain the contrary, would be to impeach the wis- 
 dom and holinc.T". of Jesus Christ himself. 
 
 12. It is objected that this doctrine lowers the 
 standard of holiness to a level with our own ex- 
 perience. It is not denied that in some instances 
 this may have been true. Nor can it be denied, 
 that the standard of Christian perfection has 
 been elevated much above the demands of the 
 law, in its application to human beings in our 
 present state of existence. It seems to have 
 been forgotten, that the inquiry is, what does 
 the law demand ? — not of angels, and what would 
 be entire sanctification in them ; nor of Adam, 
 previously to the fall, when his powers of body 
 and mind were all in a state of perfect health : 
 not what will the law demand of us in a future 
 state of existence ; not what the law may de- 
 mand of the Church in some future period of its 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 157 
 
 tiowledged 
 loctrine. 
 ie duty to 
 nt state— - 
 (ley really 
 charge of 
 3st unrea- 
 i that the 
 ^t accuse 
 '• Entire 
 our duty. 
 ^e sin in 
 s be done 
 my cases 
 of censo- 
 to main- 
 the wis- 
 I 
 wers the 
 
 own ex- 
 nstances 
 ' denied, 
 tion has 
 s of the 
 3 in our 
 to have 
 at does 
 t would 
 
 Adam, 
 ^f body 
 health : 
 t future 
 lay de- 
 d of its 
 
 history^on earth, when the human constitution, by 
 the universal prevalence of correct and thorough 
 temperance principles, may have acquired its 
 pristine health and powers ; — but the question is, 
 what does the law of God require of Christians 
 of the present generation ; of Christiatis in all 
 respects in our circumstances, with all the ignor- 
 ance and debility of body and mind which have 
 resulted from the intemperance and abuse of the 
 human constitution through so many generations? 
 
 The law levels its claims to us as we are, and 
 a j ust exposition of it, as I have already said, under 
 all the present circumstances of our being, is 
 indispensable to a right apprehension of what 
 constitutes entire sanctification. 
 
 To be sure, there may be danger of frittering 
 away the claims of the law and letting down the 
 standard. But I would humbly inquire whether, 
 hitherto, the error has not been on the other side, 
 and whether as a general fact, the law has not 
 been so interpreted as naturally to beget the idea 
 so prevalent, that if a man should become holy 
 he could not live in this world ? In a letter lately 
 received from a beloved, and useful, and vener- 
 ated minister of the gospel, while the writer ex- 
 pressed the greatest attachment to the doctrine 
 of entire consecration to God, and said that he 
 preached the same doctrine which we hold to his 
 people every Sabbath, but by another name, still 
 he added that it was revolting to his feelings to 
 hear any mere man set up the claim of obedience 
 to the law of God. Now let me inquire, why 
 should this be revolting to the feelings of piety ? 
 Must it not be because the lav/ of God is supposed 
 
 ) 
 
 U 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 li 
 
159 
 
 VIF.WS f)F 
 
 to require something ol human beings in our 
 state, which it does not and cannot require ? 
 Why should such a claim be thought extravagant, 
 unless the claims of the living God be thought 
 extravagant? If the law of God really requires 
 no more of men than what is reasonable and 
 possible, why should it be revolting to any mind 
 to hear an individual profess to have attained to 
 entire obedience? I kr ;)w that the brother to 
 whom I allude, would be almost the last man 
 deliberately and knowingly to give any strained 
 interpretation to the law of God ; and yet I can- 
 not but feel that much of the difficulty that good 
 men have upon this subject, has arisen out of a 
 comparison of the lives of saints with a standard 
 entirely above that which the law of God does 
 or can demand of persons in all respects in our 
 circumstances. 
 
 13. Another objection is, that as a matter of 
 fact the grace of God is not sufficient to secure 
 the entire sanctification of saints in this life. It 
 is maintained, that the question of the attain- 
 ability of entire sanctification in this life, resolves 
 itself after all into the question whether the 
 Church is, and Christians are sanctified in this 
 life ? The objectors say that nothing is suf- 
 ficient grace that does not as a matter of fact, 
 secure the faith and obedience and perfection ot 
 the saints ; and, therefore, the provisions of the 
 gospel are in fact to be measured by the results ; 
 and that the experience of the Church decides 
 both the meaning of the promises and the extent 
 of the provisions of grace. Now, to this I answer: 
 
 If this objection be good for any thing in regard 
 
in our 
 tquire ? 
 ,^agant, 
 liought 
 iquires 
 le and 
 ^ mind 
 ned to 
 her to 
 t man 
 rained 
 I can- 
 t good 
 it of a 
 ndard 
 i does 
 n our 
 
 iter of 
 lecure 
 e. It 
 ttain- 
 jolves 
 r the 
 this 
 ; suf- 
 fact, 
 on ot 
 )f the 
 jults ; 
 cides 
 xtent 
 Jwer: 
 gard 
 
 SANCriFlCATlON. 
 
 159 
 
 
 f 
 
 to entire sanctification, it is equally true in regard 
 to the spiritual state of every person in the world. 
 If the fact that men arc not perfect, proves that 
 uo provision is made for their perfection, their 
 being no l)(;tter than they are proves that there 
 is no ])rovision for their being any better than 
 they are, or that they might have aimed at being 
 any better, with any rational hope of success. 
 But who, except a fatalist, will admit any such 
 conclusion as this? And yet I do not see but 
 this conclusion is inevitable from such premises. 
 
 14. Another objection to this doctrine is, that 
 it is contrary to the views of some of the greatest 
 and best men in the Church, — that such men as 
 Augustine, Calvin, Doddridge, Edwards, <&c., 
 were of a different opinion. To this I answer: 
 
 (i.) Suppose they were; — we are to call no 
 man father in such a sense as to yield up to him 
 the forming of our views of Christian doctrine. 
 
 (2.) This objection comes with a very ill grace 
 from those who wholly reject their opinions on 
 some of the most important points of Christian 
 doctrine. 
 
 (3.) Those men all held the doctrine of physical 
 depravity, which was manifestly the ground of 
 their rejecti<i>,, the doctrine ol entire consecration 
 to God in this life. Maintaining as they seem 
 to have done, that the constitutional susceptibil- 
 ities of body and mind were depraved and sinful, 
 consistency, of course, led them to reject the 
 idea that persons could be entirely sanctified 
 while in the body. Now, I would ask what con- 
 sistency is there in quoting them as rejecting the 
 doctrine of entire sanctification in this life, while 
 
 ;r.«ti.r3t*J, < 1 1 tlWW***** 
 
 .»!•' 
 
i6o 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 ■ 
 
 the reason of this rejection, in their minds, was 
 founded in the doctrine of physical depravity, 
 which notion is entirely denied by those who 
 quote their authority ? 
 
 15. But, again, it is objected, that if we should 
 attain this state of entire and continual consecra- 
 tion or sanctification, we could not know it until 
 the day of Judgment, and that to maintain its 
 attainability is vain, inasmuch as no one can 
 know whether he has attained it or not. To this 
 I reply; 
 
 (i.) A man's consciousness is the highest and 
 best evidence ot the present state of his own 
 mind. I understand consciousness to be the 
 mind's recognition of its own states, and that it 
 is the highest possible evidence to our own minds 
 of what passes within us. Consciousness can of 
 course testify only to our present sanctification, 
 but 
 
 (2.) With the law of God before us as our 
 standard, the testimony of consciousness in re- 
 gard to whether the mind is conformed to that 
 standard or not, is the highest evidence which 
 the mind can have of a present state of conformi- 
 ty to that rule. 
 
 (3.) It is a testimony which we cannot doubt 
 any more than we can doubt our existence. 
 How do we know, that we exist ? I answer : by 
 our consciousness. How do I know that I breathe, 
 or love, or hate, or sit, or stand, or lie down, or 
 rise up — that I am joyful or sorrowful — in short, 
 that I exercise any emotion, or volition, or affec- 
 tion of nvlnd — How do I know that I sin, or re- 
 peiit, or believe.'' I answer: by my own conscious- 
 
 t. 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 t6i 
 
 ness. No testimony can be " so direct and con- 
 vincing as this." 
 
 Now in order to know, that my repentance is 
 genuine, I must intellectually understand what 
 genuine repentance is. So if I would know 
 whether my love to God or man, or obedience to 
 the law is genuine, I must have clearly before 
 my mind the real spirit, and meaning, and bear- 
 ing of the law of God. Having the rule before 
 my mind, my own consciousness affords " the 
 most direct and convincing evidence possible" 
 whether my present state of mind is conformed 
 to the rule. The Spirit of God is never employed 
 in testifyin,^ lO what my consciousness teaches, 
 but in setting in a strong light before the mind 
 the rule to which I am to conform my life. It 
 is His business to make me understand, to induce 
 me to love and obey the truth ; and it is the 
 business of consciousness to testify to my own 
 mind, whether I do or do not obey the truth 
 when I apprehend it. A man ma}' be mistaken 
 in regard to the correctness of the law or truth of 
 God. He may therefore mistake the character 
 of his exercises. But when God so presents the 
 truth as to give the mind assurance, that it 
 understands his mind and will upon any subject, 
 the mind's consciousness of its own exercises in 
 view of that truth, is " the highest and most 
 direct possible " evidence of whether it obeys or 
 disobeys. 
 
 (4.) If a man cannot be conscious of the char- 
 acter of his own exercises, how can he know 
 when and of what he is to lepent ? If he has 
 committed sin of which he is not conscious, how 
 6 
 
 I 
 
 ii 
 
 i 
 
i! 
 
 ;«i 
 
 162 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 is he to repent of it ? And if he has a holiness 
 of which he is not conscious, how could he feel 
 that he has peace with God ? 
 
 But it is said a man may violate the law not 
 knowinf( it, and consequently have no conscious- 
 ness that he sinned, but that afterwards a know- 
 ledge of the law may convict him of sin. To this 
 1 reply, that if there was absolutely no knowledge 
 that the thing in question was wrong, the doing 
 of that thing was not sin, inasmuch as some de- 
 gree of knowledge of what is right or wrong is 
 indispensable to the moral character of any act. 
 In such a case there may be a sinful ignorance 
 which may involve all the guilt of those actions 
 that were ^ done in consequence of it ; but that 
 blame-worthiness lies in the ignorance itself, and 
 not at all in the violation of the rule of which the 
 mind was at that time entirely ignorant. 
 
 (5.) The Bible everywhere assumes, that we 
 are able to know, and unqualifiedly requires us 
 to know what the moral state of our mind is. It 
 commands us to examine ourselves, to know and 
 to prove our own selves. Now how can this be 
 done but by bringing our hearts in to the light of 
 the law of God, and then taking the testimony of 
 our own consciousness, whether we are or are not 
 in a state of conformity to the law ? But if we 
 are not to receive the testimony of our conscious- 
 ness in regard to our sanctification, are we to re- 
 ceive it in respect to our repentance or any other 
 exercise of our mind whatever? The fact is that 
 we may deceive ourselves, by neglecting to com- 
 pare ourselves with the right standard. But 
 when our views of the standard are right, and 
 
SANCTIFICATIOM. 
 
 ^03. 
 
 our consciousness is a felt, decided, unequivocal 
 state of mind, we cannot be deceived any more 
 than we can be deceived in regard to our own 
 existence. 
 
 (6.) But it is said our consciousness does not 
 teach us what the power and capacities of our 
 minds are, and that therefore, if consciousness 
 could teach us in respect to the kind of our exer- 
 cises, it cannot teach us in regard to their degree^ 
 whether they are equu.1 to the present capability 
 of our mmd. To this I reply : 
 
 a. Consciousness does as unequivocally testify 
 whether we do or do not love God with all our 
 heart, as it does whether we love Him at all. 
 How does a man know that he lifts as much as 
 he can, or runs, or leaps, or walks as fast as he 
 is able ? I answer : by his own consciousness. 
 How does he know that he repents or loves with 
 all his heart ? I answer : by his own conscious- 
 ness. This is the onl}^ possible way in wliich he 
 can know it. 
 
 6. The objection implies that God has put 
 within our reach no possible means of knowing 
 whether we obey Him or not. The Bible does 
 not directly reveal the fact to any man, whether 
 he obeys God or not. It reveals his duty, but 
 does not reveal the fact whether he obeys. It 
 refers this testimony to his own consciousness. 
 The Spirit of God sets our duty before us, but 
 does not directly reveal to us whether we do it 
 or not : for this- would imply that every man is 
 under constant inspiration. 
 
 But it is said the Bible directs our attention to 
 the fact, whether we obey or disobey is evidence 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 I 
 
 \ 
 
 k%^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 mum 
 
 «e* 
 
1'., 
 
 .64 
 
 VIKWS OF 
 
 whether we are in a right state of mind or not. 
 J^ut I would inquire, how do we know whether 
 we obey or disobey ? How do we know any thing 
 of our conduct but by our consciousness ? Our 
 conduct as observed by otiiers is to them evidence 
 of the state of our liearts. But, 1 repeat it, our 
 consciousness of obedience to God, is to us tlie 
 liighest and indeed the only evidence of our true 
 cliaracter. 
 
 c. If a man's own consciousness is not to be 
 a witness, either for or against him, no other tes- 
 timony in the universe can ever satisfy him ot 
 the propriety of Gods dealing with him in the 
 iinal judgment. Let ten thousand witnesses 
 testify that a man had committed murder, still 
 the man could not feel condemned for it unless 
 his own consciousness bore testimony to the fact. 
 So if ten thousand witnesses should testify that 
 he had performed some good act, he could feel no 
 self-complacenc}^, or sense of self-approbation 
 and virtue, unless his consciousness bore its tes- 
 timony to the same eft'ect. There are cases of 
 common occurrence, where the witnesses testify 
 to the guilt or innocence of a man contrary to the 
 testimony of his own consciousness. In all such 
 cases, from the very laws of his being, he rejects 
 all other testimony : and let me add, that he would 
 reject the testimony of God, and from the very 
 laws of his being must reject it, if it contradicted 
 his own consciousness. When God convicts a 
 man of sin, it is not by contradicting his con- 
 sciousness; but, by placing the consci )usness 
 which he had at the time in the clear, strong 
 light of his memory, causing him to discover 
 
 ■^"•■?f»*S^Si^^Si^ 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 165 
 
 clearly, and to remember distinctly, what light 
 he had, what thoughts, what convictions ; in 
 other words, what consciousness he had at the 
 time. And this, let me add, is the way, and the 
 only way, in which the Spirit of God can convict 
 a man of sin, thus bringing him to condemn him- 
 self. Now, suppose that God should bear testi- 
 mony against a. man^ that at such a time he did 
 such a thing — that such and such were all the 
 circiinlstances of the case — and suppose that, at 
 the same tirrie, the individual is unable to remem- 
 ber, and appears never to have had the least 
 consciousness of the transaction. The testimony 
 of God, in this case, could not satisfy the man's 
 mind, or lead him into a state of self-condemna- 
 tion. The only possible way in which this state 
 of mind could be induced would be to arouse the 
 memory of part consciousness, and cause the 
 whole scene to start into living reality before his 
 mind's eye, as it passed in his own consciousness 
 at the time. But if he had no consciousness of 
 any such thing, and consequently no remem- 
 brance of it could possibly take place to convict 
 him of sin is naturally and for ever impossible. 
 
 (7.) Men may overlook what consciousness is. 
 They may mistake the rule of duty — they may 
 confound consciousness with a mere negative 
 state of mind, or that state in which a man is not 
 conscious of a state of opposition to the truth. 
 Yet it must for ever remain true, that to our own 
 minds, *' consciousness must be the highest pos- 
 sible evidence" of what passes within us. And 
 if a man does not, by his own consciousness, 
 know whether he does the best that he can, un- 
 
 i 
 
 ' H 
 
 
it 
 
 (' -- 
 
 tl ^ 
 
 h (i 
 
 V,=! 
 
 ifi 
 
 1 66 
 
 VlKWS OF 
 
 (ler the circumstances —whether he has a single 
 eye to the glory oi (iod — and whether he is in a 
 state of entire consecration to God — he cannot 
 know it in any way whatever. And no testi- 
 mony whatever, cither oi God or man, could, ac- 
 cording to the law of his being, satisfy him, and 
 beget in him either conviction of guilt on the one 
 hand, or self-approbation on the other. 
 
 (8.) Let me ask, how those who make this 
 objection know that they are not in a sanctified 
 state ? Has God revealed it to them ? Has He 
 revealed it in the Bible ? Does the Bible say to 
 A. B., by name, you arenot in a sanctified state ? 
 or does it lay down a rule, in the light of which 
 his own consciousness bears this testimony 
 against him ? Has God revealed directly by 
 Piis Spirit^ that he is not in a sanctified state? 
 Or does He hold the rule of duty strongl}^ before 
 the mind, and thus awaken the testimony of con- 
 sciousness, that he is not in this state. 
 
 Now just in the same way, consciousness testi- 
 fies of those that are sanctified, that they are in 
 that state. Neither the Bible nor the Spirit of 
 God, makes any new or particular revelation to 
 them by name. * But the Spirit of God bears 
 witness with their spirits, by setting the rule in 
 a strong light before them. He induces that 
 state of mind that consciousness pronounces to 
 be conformity to the rule. This is as far as 
 possible from setting aside the judgment of God 
 in the case, lor consciousness is, under these 
 circumstances, the testimony of God, and the 
 way in which he convinces of sin on the one 
 hand, and of entire consecration on the other. 
 
by 
 
 SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 167 
 
 By some, it is still objected that consciousness 
 
 alone is not evidence even to ourselves, of our 
 being or not being in a state of entire sanctifica- 
 tion — that the judgment of th(i mind is also em- 
 ployed in deciding the true intent and meaning 
 of the law, and is therefore as absolutely a wit- 
 ness in the case as consciousness is. "Conscious- 
 ness," it is said, "gives us the exercises of our 
 own mind, and the judgment decides whether 
 these exercises are in accordance with the law of 
 God." So that it is the judgment rather than 
 the consciousness, that decides whether we are 
 or are not in a state of entire sanctification ; and 
 therefore, il in our judgment of the law we happen 
 to be mistaken, than which nothing is more com- 
 mon, in such case we are utterly deceived, if we 
 think ourselves in a state of entire sanctification. 
 To this 1 answer, 
 
 1. It is indeed our judgment that decides upon 
 the intent and meaning of the law. 
 
 2. That we may be mistaken in regard to its 
 true meaning and appHcation in certain cases. 
 Bit, 
 
 3. 1 deny that it is the judgment which is to us 
 the witness in respect to the state of our own 
 minds. There are several powers of the mind 
 called into exercise in deciding upon the meaning 
 of, and obeying the law of God ; but it is con- 
 sciousness alone that gives us these exercises. 
 Nothing but consciousness can possibly give us 
 any exercise of our own minds, that is, we have 
 no knowledge of any exercise but by our own 
 consciousness. Suppose then the judgment is 
 exercised,' the will is exercised, and all the vol- 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 K'WIH 
 
i68 
 
 VIEWS or 
 
 luitary powers are e^ercisrd. These exercises 
 are revealed tu us only an 1^ irfMy by conscious- 
 ness; so that it remains an inNariah'.: truth, that 
 consciousness is to us the only possible witness 
 of what our exercises are, and consequently of 
 the state of our own minds. 
 
 While I say that consciousness is the only evi- 
 dence we have or can have of our spiritual state, 
 and of the exercises of our own minds, it should 
 be distinctly kept in mind that many thoughts, 
 emotions, and affections, pass in our minds which 
 we do not so distinctly recognize at the time as 
 to remember them for an hour, or perhaps for a 
 moment. We must be indeed slightly conscious 
 of their existence at the time ; but our minds 
 being occupied so much with other things, pre- 
 vents our so distin '.tly marking them, as to lodge 
 them in our memories. Now of these thoughts, 
 emotions and affections, which thus often pass 
 through our minds in a great measure unnoticed, 
 the following things should be said, deeply pon- 
 dered, well understood, and always remembered. 
 
 1. Many of them to say the least, must be sin- 
 ful or holy. 
 
 2. If they are not distinctly noticed by con- 
 sciousness, their moral character whether sinful 
 or holy, may be at the time overlooked by us. 
 
 3. As we have no distinct recollection of them, 
 we may affirm that we are not conscious of sin, 
 when as a matter of fact we may have been 
 guilty of it in the exercise of these unnoticed 
 thoughts and affections. 
 
 4. So that all that a man in this ^state of ex- 
 istence may ever be able to affirm in respect to his 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 169 
 
 jrcises 
 cious- 
 i,that 
 itness 
 tly of 
 
 y evi- 
 state, 
 bould 
 ghts, 
 which 
 ne as 
 for a 
 Jcious 
 Binds 
 , pre- 
 lodge 
 ights, 
 pass 
 ticed, 
 pon- 
 >ered. 
 5 sin- 
 
 con- 
 jinful 
 s. 
 
 hem, 
 " sin, 
 been 
 :iced 
 
 ' ex- 
 ohis 
 
 moral character is, that he is not conscious of sin, 
 without being able to say absolutely that he does 
 not, and has not within a given time, had any 
 exercise of mind that is sinful. When his mind 
 is strongly exercised, and his consciousness there- 
 fore very clear and distinct, he may be able to 
 aftirm with a good degree of confidence, if not 
 with certainty, that he has had no sinful exer- 
 cises pe.haps for a given time, but yet of the gen- 
 eral tenor of his life I do not see how he can 
 affirm any thing more with certainty, than that 
 he does not remember to have been conscious of 
 any sin. 
 
 5. This view of the subject will account for 
 the fact to which I have already alluded, that the 
 way in which the Spirit of God often, nay always, 
 convinces of sin, is by awakening in our mem- 
 ories the recollection of past consciousness, and 
 often in this way revealing to us distmctly former 
 states of mind of which we were but very slightly 
 conscious at the time, thus making us to see that 
 we have been guilty of sin of the commission of 
 which we were not before at all aware. Paul 
 seems to me to recognize the principle here in- 
 culcated, when he says : " But with me it is a 
 very small thing that I should be judged of you, 
 or of man's judgment; yea, I judge not mine 
 own self; for I know nothing by myself; yet am 
 1 not hereby justified : but He that judgeth me is 
 the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the 
 time, until the Lord come, who both will bring 
 to light the hidden things of darkness, and will 
 make manifest the counsels of the hearts ; and 
 then shall every man hr-ve praise of God." Here 
 
 I 
 
 wmmmmmmmmnMa 
 
170 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 the Apostle says that he does not judge or under- 
 take to decide fully, as I understand him, in re- 
 
 •t to til 
 
 irtVrti 
 
 •f h 
 
 character 
 
 own 
 '• Kor 1 know not hni^^ by myself; yet am I not here- 
 by justified : that isif 1 understand him, Though 
 I am not conscious of any wron^, yet by this I 
 am not justified. ''But He that judgeth me is 
 the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the 
 time, until the Lord come, who will bring to 
 light the hidden things of darkness, and make 
 manifest the counsels of the heart." By the 
 " hidden things of darkness," in this connection, 
 the Apostle seems to me to refer to those states 
 of mind of which at the time he had very slight 
 consciousness, and was therefore immediately 
 forgotten. Paul could not have meant that he 
 formed no judgment whatever of his own char- 
 acter, or that he did not judge himself in respect 
 to the general uprightness and h liness of his 
 character, for this would make him contradict 
 what he elsewliei*. affirms ; but that there might 
 be things unperceived or unremembered about 
 him of which he did not form a judgment, and 
 could not therefore say that in no thought or 
 affection, he had been guilty of any wrong. 
 
 When therefore I say that by consciousness a 
 man may know whether he is in a state of entire 
 sanctification, I mean that consciousness is the 
 real and only evidence that we can have ot being 
 in this state, and that when our minds are exer- 
 cised strongly, and our consciousness therefore 
 distinct, the testimony of consciousness is clear 
 and explicit, and so satisfactory that we cannot 
 doubt it. But under other circumstances, and in 
 
 8 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 171 
 
 other states of mind, when the exercises of the 
 mind are such as to render consciousness less dis- 
 tinct and vivid, affections may he exercised by 
 us, whether sinful or holy, that are not so dis- 
 tinctly noticed by consciousness, and so fully re- 
 membered by us that we can afrirm absolutely of 
 them, that they were not sinful. 
 
 Again, the objection that consciousness cannot 
 decide in regard to the strength of our powers, 
 and whether we really serve God with all our 
 strength, seems to be based upon the false sup- 
 position that the law of God requires every 
 power of body and mind to be excited at every 
 moment to its full strength, and that too without 
 any regard to the nature of the subject about 
 which our powers for the time being are employ- 
 ed. In a former part of this discourse, I endeavor- 
 ed to show, and trust I did sliow, that perfect 
 obedience to the law of God requires no such 
 thing. Entire sanctification, is entire consecra- 
 tion. Entire consecration, is obedience to the 
 law of God ; and all that the law requires is, that 
 our whole being be consecrated to God, and the 
 amount of strength to be expended in his service 
 at any one moment of time, must depend upon 
 the nature of the subject about which the powers 
 are for the time being employed. And nothing 
 is farther from the truth than that obedience to 
 the law of God requires every power of body and 
 mind to be constantly on the strain, and in the 
 highest possible degree ol excitement and activity. 
 Such an interpretation of the law of God as this, 
 would be utterly inconsistent with life and health, 
 and would write Mene, Tekel upon the life and 
 
172 
 
 VlliWS OF 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 conduct of |«'sus ('lirist hinis(;lf; for his whole 
 
 >f 
 
 thi 
 
 he was not in a state 
 constant excitement to the full extent of his 
 powers. 
 
 tT). Again, it is objected that if this state were 
 attained in this life, it would be the end of our 
 probation. To this I reply, that probation since 
 the fall of Adam, or those points in which we are 
 in a state of probation or trial, are, 
 
 (i.) Whether we will repent and believe the 
 gospel ; 
 
 (2.) Whether we will persevere in holiness to 
 the end of life. 
 
 Some suppose that the doctrine of the perse- 
 verance of the saints, sets aside the idea of being 
 at all in a state of probation after conversi n. 
 They reason thus: If it is certain that the saints 
 will persevere, then their probation is ended; be- 
 cause the question is already settled, not only 
 that they will be converted, but that they will 
 persevere to the end, and the contingency in re- 
 gard to the event, is indispensable to the idea of 
 probation. To this I reply: 
 
 That a thing may be contingent with man that 
 is not at all so with God. With God, there is not, 
 and never was any contingency with regard to 
 the final destiny of any being. But with men, 
 almost all things are contingencies. God knows 
 with absolute certainty whether a man will be 
 converted, and whether he will persevere. A 
 man may know that he is converted, and may 
 believe that by the grace of God he shall per- 
 severe. He may have an assurance of this in 
 proportion to the strength of his faith. But the 
 
 
SANCTIIICATION. 
 
 173 
 
 whole 
 te of 
 ^f his 
 
 were 
 
 t our 
 
 since 
 
 veare 
 
 knowledge of this fact is not at all inconsistent 
 with the idea of his continuance in a stat(^ of 
 trial till the day of his d(!ath. in ;»s much as his 
 perseverance depends upon the exercise of his 
 own voluntary agency. 
 
 In the same way some say, that if we have at- 
 tained a state of (Mitire and permanent sanctihca- 
 tion, we can no longer he in a state of probation. 
 I answer, that pers(;verance in this depends upon 
 the promises and grace of (lod, just as the final 
 perseverance of the saints does. In neither case 
 can we have any other assurance of our persever- 
 ance than that of faith in the promise and graces 
 of God : n(jr any other knowledge that we shall 
 continue in this state, than that which arises out 
 of a belief in the testimony of God, that He will 
 preserve us blameless until the coming of our 
 Lord Jesus (>hrist. If this be inconsistent with 
 our probation, I see not why the doctrine of the 
 saint's perseverance is not ecjually inconsistent 
 with it. If any one is disposed to maintain that 
 for us to have any judgment or belief in regard 
 to our final penseverance, is inconsistent with a 
 state of probation, all I can say is, that his views 
 of probation are very different from my own, and 
 so far as I understand, from those of the Church 
 of God. 
 
 Again: there is a very high and important 
 sense in which every moral being will remain on 
 probation to all eternity. While under the moral 
 government of God, obedience must forever re- 
 main a condition of the favor of God. And the 
 fact of continued obedience will forever depend 
 on the faithfulness and grace of God ; and the 
 
 ■ 
 
 ii 
 
¥ 
 
 ^74 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 1 ii 
 
 i \. 
 
 only knowledge we can ever have of this fact, 
 either in heaven or on earth, must be founded 
 iipon the faithfuhiess and truth of God. 
 
 Again j if it were true, that entering upon a 
 state of permanent sanctification in this life, were, 
 in some sense, an end of our probation, that 
 would be no objection to the doctrine ; for there 
 is a sense in which probation often ends long 
 before the termination of this life. Where, for 
 example, a person has conmiitted the unpardon- 
 able sin, or where from any cause, God has given 
 up sinners to fill up the measure of their iniquity, 
 withdrawing forever his Holy Spirit from them, 
 and sealed them over to eternal death ; this, ir 
 a very important sense, is the end of their pro- 
 bation, and they are as sure cS hell as if they 
 were already there. 
 
 So on the other hand, when a person has re- 
 ceived, after that he believes, the sealing of the 
 Spirit unto the day of redemption, as an earnest 
 of his inheritance, he may and is bound to re- 
 gard this as a solemn pledge on the part of God 
 of his final perseverance and salvation, and as 
 no longer leaving the final question of his destiny 
 in doubt. 
 
 Now it should be remembered, that in botli 
 these cases the result depends upon the exercise 
 of *he agency of the creature. In the case of the 
 sinner given up of God, it is certain that he will 
 not repent, though his impenitence is voluntary 
 and by no means a thing naturally necessary. So 
 on the other hand, the perseverance of the saints 
 is certain though not necessary. If in either 
 
 c] 
 
 tl 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 175 
 
 fact, 
 >unded 
 
 ipon a 
 ,were, 
 , that 
 there 
 Jong 
 re, for 
 rdon- 
 given 
 
 quity, 
 
 them, 
 
 lis, ir 
 
 r pro- 
 thev 
 
 IS re- 
 •f the 
 rnest 
 o re- 
 God 
 d as 
 stiny 
 
 both 
 rcise 
 
 the 
 wiJJ 
 tary 
 
 So 
 ints 
 her 
 
 case there should be a radical change of character, 
 the result would differ accordingly. 
 
 17. Again, while it is admitted by some that 
 entire sanctification in this life is attainable, yet 
 it is r^enied that there is any certainty that it will 
 be attained by any one before death. For, it is 
 said, that all the promises of entire sanctification 
 are conditioned upon faith, they therefore secure 
 the entire sanctification of no one. To this I 
 reply : 
 
 TliJit all the promises o{ salvation in the Bible 
 are conditioned upon faith and repentance, and 
 therefore it does not follow on this principle, that 
 any person ever will be saved. What does all 
 this arguing prove? The fact is, that while the 
 promises of both salvation and sanctification, are 
 conditioned upon faith as it respects individuals ; 
 yet to Christ and to the Church as a body, as I 
 have alread}'^ shown, these promises are uncon- 
 ditional. With respect to the salvation of sinners, 
 it is promised that Christ shall have a seed to 
 serve Him, and the Bible abounds with promises, 
 both to Christ and the Church, that secure with- 
 out condition as it regards them, the salvation of 
 great multitudes of sinners. So the promises 
 that the Church as a body, at some period of her 
 arthly history, shall be entirely sanctified, are, 
 as it regards the Church, unconditional. But, as 
 I have already shown, as it^respects individuals, 
 the fulfilment of these promises must depend 
 upon the exercise of faith. Both in the salvation 
 of sinners and the sanctification of Christians, 
 God is abundantly pledged to bring about the 
 salvation of the one and the sanctification of the 
 
 % 
 
 i 
 
 'i' 
 it 
 
 it 
 
 <t 
 
 i 
 
 >mm 
 
170 
 
 VIEWS OV 
 
 I. 
 
 ; H 
 
 Other, to the extent of His promise. But as it re- 
 spects individuals, no one can claim the lulfil- 
 nient of these promises without complying with 
 the conditions. 
 
 These are tlie principal objections that have 
 occurred to luy mind, or that have, so far as I 
 know, been urged by others. There may be and 
 doubtless are others, of greater or less plausibil- 
 ity, to which I may have occasion to refer here- 
 after. 
 
 VIII. / am next to shoiv when entire sanctijica- 
 lion is attainable. 
 
 I. The blessing of entire sanctification is prom- 
 ised to Christians. The promise in — 
 
 Jer. xxxi. 31 — 34 : " Behold, the days come, 
 saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant 
 wi^h the house of Israel, and with the house of 
 Judah : not according to the covenant that I 
 made with their fathers, in the day that I took 
 them by the hand to bring them out of the land 
 of Kgypt; which my covenant they break, al- 
 though I was a husband unto them, saith the 
 Lord : but this shall be the covenant that I will 
 make with the house of Israel : After those days, 
 saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward 
 parts and write it in their hearts ; and will be 
 their God, and they shall be my people. And 
 they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, 
 and every man his Brother, saying, know the 
 Lord, for they shall all know me, from the least 
 of them unto t^e greatest of them, saith the Lord: 
 for I will foi /e their iniquity, and I will re- 
 member their sins no more." 
 
SANCriFlCATloN. 
 
 ^77 
 
 it re- 
 ulfil- 
 with 
 
 have 
 
 as 1 
 
 and 
 
 Jibil- 
 
 lere- 
 
 Ezk. xxxvi. 25-27: "Then will I sprinkle clean 
 water upon you, and ye shall be clean : from all 
 your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I 
 cieanse you. A new heart, also, will 1 give you, 
 and a new spirit will I put within you: and 1 will 
 take away the stony heart out ot your ilesh, and 
 1 will give you a heart of flesh. And 1 will put 
 my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in 
 my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments 
 and do them." 
 
 I Thess. V. 23 — 24 : ** And the very God of 
 peace sanctify you wholly ; and I pray God your 
 whole spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved 
 blameless unto tlie coming of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ. Faithful is He that calleth you, who also 
 will do it." 
 
 Eph. i. 13: ''In whom ye also trusted, after 
 that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of 
 your salvation ; in w^boni also, after that ye be- 
 lieved, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of 
 promise," 
 
 These and many others show that the promise 
 is made to those who have some degree of faith,, 
 that is, who have been regenerated. In the last 
 it is said: " We are sealed after that we believe." 
 
 2. Faith is always the expressed or implied 
 condition of the promises. It has been supposed 
 that the promise in Jer. xxxi., together with 
 other kindred promises, is absolute in such a 
 sense as to have no condition whatever. To this 
 it may be replied, as it has been before in sub- 
 stance, i:hat the things which they promi*^" ^ re of 
 such a nature as that they cannot pos' ly be 
 received but by faith, nor is faith the ti ig pro- 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 vm 
 
a 
 
 178 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 ' ! • ' 
 
 I 
 
 I! 
 
 > ! 
 
 ; Si: 
 
 mised. The law of love cannot -possibly be written 
 in the heart, but through the faith which works 
 by love. Therefore of necessity this promise, as 
 well as all other promises of spiritual blessings, 
 is conditioned upon faith in us. It may be said 
 that the promise to write the law in our hearts, 
 includes the doing of all that which is essential 
 to its fulfilment, and that therefore a promise to 
 beget love is virtually a promise to secure the 
 right use of the means necessary to that end. But 
 this is as far as possible from excluding our own 
 agency and responsibility. When Paul had de- 
 clared, that not a hair of any man's head on 
 board the ship should perish, this did not exclude 
 the necessity of the sailors remaining on board. 
 For he afterwards said, " except these abide m 
 the ship ye cannot be saved." Now it is true 
 that in a very important sense, the promise that 
 the hair of no man's head sHpuld perish, implied 
 that God would secure the use of the requisite 
 means to preserve them. Yet who would infer 
 from this that that promise was not conditioned 
 upon the sailors remaining on board, and the 
 right use of the voluntary agency of Paul and all 
 the rest on bo?v to preserve themselves. So 
 it should be remeiiibered, that the promises, to 
 create a new heart and a new spirit — to make a 
 new covenant with the house of Israel — and to 
 write the law in tht.^r hearts — are certainly and 
 necessarily condiiloa^d ^ipnn the taith of every 
 one who would receive Lheir fiilfilment. 
 
 To the doctrine u^ retire sanctification by 
 faith, it has been objected, that faith is itself a 
 holy exercise, and therefore, as such, is, for the 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 179 
 
 en 
 •ks 
 as 
 
 id 
 
 al 
 to 
 
 time being, entire sanctification, and that, to 
 make faith the condition of entire sanctification 
 is to make entire holiness the condition of entire 
 hoHness. To this I reply : sanctification is by 
 faith in two senses. 
 
 I. Sanctification is by faith in opposition to 
 sanctification^ by law, that is, the sonl is sancti- 
 fied by faith in Christ in opposition to legal 
 sanctification. Christians are made holy by 
 contemplating the love of Christ and by faith in 
 Him and His Atonement instead of being made 
 holy by the influence of legal considerations. 
 This is evident from what the Apostle says in 
 Rom. ix. 30-32 : ** What shall we say then ? That 
 the Gentiles, which followed not after righteous- 
 ness, have attained to righteousness, even the 
 righteousness which is of faith ; but Israel, which 
 followed after the law of righteousness, hath not 
 attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore ? 
 Because they sought if not by faith, but, as it 
 were, by the works of the law: for they stumbled 
 at that stumbling-stone" The sanctification 01 
 the saints is effected only by renouncing all hc^ne 
 of justification or sanctification on the grouno of 
 law, and embracing Christ as our wisdom, 
 righteousness, sanctification and redemption. 
 Faith is, indeed, a holy exercise, and therefore is, 
 in the lowest sense, entire sanctification.' It is 
 entire sanctification in the sense, simply, of i 
 holy exercise. But it is not a state of entire 
 sanctification in the sense in which I use the 
 term in this discourse, nor, as I think, in the 
 sense in which the Bible nses the term. The 
 sense in which I use the term entire i?anctifica- 
 
 fW'i»>qn«8is^iiraCM>.g^8ia»»'{TOWW 
 
%jm 
 
 1 
 
 
 ■ 1 
 
 ■'!l 
 
 
 
 
 i<So 
 
 VlliWS OF 
 
 tion includes all that is implied in perfect obedi- 
 ence to the law of God. In this sense of the 
 term, it includes, if I may so speak, the who/e 
 family of holy exercises, of which faith is one, 
 and but one. In the sense in which I use entire 
 sanctification, it includes all the modifications 
 of benevolence, whereas faith is but one of the 
 forms, or modifications of holiness. 
 
 2. Who does not know that one holy exercise 
 not only may be the condition of another, but 
 that, as a matter of fact, faith is and must be the 
 condition of the whole circle of holy affections. 
 
 3. This state is attainable on the ground of 
 natural ability at any time. If this state were 
 not attainable on the ground of natural ability, 
 it would not be required, and its absence would 
 not be sin. But it has been doubted whether 
 the work of entire sanctification is such, in its 
 own nature, that it can be accomplished at once. 
 To this I reply: 
 
 (i.) If it cannot be instantly accomplished, it 
 would not be instantly required. 
 
 (2.) If it were not, in its own naturr, capable 
 of being attained at once, the non-attaining of it 
 at once would not be sin. All that would be 
 required would be to press forward as fast as we 
 could. 
 
 (3.) But in this case the pressing forward 
 would be a sinless state, because it would be all 
 that could be requ: od. So that we should 
 possess at once what, according to the supposi- 
 tion, is naturally impossible, that is, a state of 
 entire sanctification. 
 
 (4.) I have already shown that provision is 
 
 mm 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 i8i 
 
 )edi- 
 the 
 hole 
 one, 
 tire 
 ons 
 the 
 
 It 
 
 made against every temptation. And as tempta- 
 tion, under some form, is the cause of all sin, if 
 sufficient provision is made against all present 
 and future temptation, it follows that a state of 
 entire sanctification is attainable at once. 
 
 4. Full faith in the word and promise of (iod, 
 naturally, and certainly, and immediately pro- 
 duces a state of entire sanctification. Let it he 
 understood that by faith, I mean — -^ 
 
 (i.) A reaHzation of the truth and meaninr; <)^ 
 the Bible. 
 
 (2.) A laying hold upon all those truths upon 
 which this state of mind depends, especially a 
 full realization and beHef of the sacred record 
 God has given of his Son, " that his blood cleans- 
 eth us from all sin." It is easy to see that the 
 realization and belief of the infinite love of God, 
 as manifested in Christ Jesus, would have a 
 tendency to fill the mind with unutterable and 
 constant love to God — and beget the most cordial 
 and perfect love to man. This result is instan- 
 taneous on the exercise of faith, and in this sense 
 sanctification is an instantaneous work. 
 
 5. God is able to produce entire sanctification 
 in any soul, when he is pleased to do so. 
 
 This appears to be plainly taught by Christ, 
 when he spoke of the ability of God to save the 
 rich. He asserts that their salvation is more dif- 
 ficult "than for a camel to go through the eye 
 of a needle." And when the disciples expressed 
 their astonishment, he replied, that "with God 
 all things are possible." Now this seems to be a 
 case in point. To sanctify the rich is the only 
 difficulty in the way of their salvation. And 
 
•Ti 
 
 182 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 t 'i 
 
 Christ has asserted, that God is able not only to 
 sanctify them, but that "all things are possible 
 with him," that is, that there is no limit to his 
 ability in this respect. 
 
 Eph. iii. 20, proves the same point. Here the 
 Apostle asserts that God is able to do *' abundant- 
 ly above all that we ask and abjve all that we 
 think," exceeding abundantly, &c. Now we can 
 b'>th ' ' :\k of and ask for the blessing of entire, 
 and perman '"*■, and instantaneous sanctification, 
 and if this passage of scripture is true, God is 
 able to grant it. 
 
 That God is able not only to produce present 
 but also to confirm l- in a state of perpetual 
 sanctification, is plain from many other passages 
 of scripture. Jude 24 : "Now unto him that 
 is able to keep you from falling, and to present 
 you faultless before the presence of his glory 
 with exceeding joy." Upon this passage 1 
 remark : 
 
 (i.) Here it is asserted, that God is able to 
 keep us from falling. 
 
 (2.) To present us faultless before the presence 
 of his glory. 
 
 (3.) To keep us and to present us faultless, is 
 to preserve us in a state of perrnanent sanctifica- 
 tion. And this it is declared he is able to do. 
 
 To this it has been objected that moral govern- 
 ment implies the power to resist every degree of 
 motive. This I most fully admit. But it is one 
 thing to have the power thus to resist, and quite 
 another to use that power. God certainly knew 
 when he created moral agents to what extent, 
 Vinder their circunistances, they would actually 
 
,«iJ 
 
 iy to 
 sibJe 
 o his 
 
 J the 
 ant- 
 we 
 can 
 tire, 
 on, 
 >d is 
 
 to 
 
 SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 1S3 
 
 exercise their p()\v(;r ol resistance, and therefore 
 whether he could saiictitv and save tliem or not. 
 As a matter of 1 ict, hv. h:is overcome the voUm- 
 tary resistance ot all who are converted. And it* 
 he has broken dovvii their e:i!nit\ , and so far sub- 
 dued them, is it incredible that he should not be 
 able wholly to sanctify tliem, and preserve them 
 blameless ? 
 
 IX. / am to shoiv how entire sandification is 
 attainable. 
 
 1. A state of entire sanctification can never be 
 attained by an indifferent waitin^f of God's time. 
 
 2. Nor by any works of law, or works of any 
 kind performed in your own strength, irrespec- 
 tive of the grace ot God. By this 1 do not mean 
 that were you disposed to exert your natural 
 powers aright, you could not at once obey the 
 law in the exercise of your natural strength. But 
 I do mean, that as you are w^holly indisposed to 
 use your natural powers aright without the grace 
 of God, no efforts that you will actually make in 
 your own strength or independent of His grace, 
 will ever result in your entire sanctification. 
 
 3. Not by any direct efforts to feel right. 
 Man}' spend their time in vain efforts to force 
 themselves into a right state of feeling. Now it 
 should be for ever understood, that neither faith, 
 love, nor repentance, nor any other right feeling 
 is ever the result of a direct effort to put forth 
 these exercises. But on the contrary, they are 
 the spontaneous actings of the mind when it has 
 under its direct and deep consideration the objects 
 of faith, and love, and repentance. By spontan- 
 
 i ^itfTrimTr i mr 
 
184 
 
 VIKVVS OF 
 
 1 '1: 
 
 i 
 
 't' 
 
 eons, I do not mean involuntary. They are the 
 voluntary and the most easy and natural states 
 of mind possible under such circumstances. So 
 far from its recjuiring an effort to put them forth, 
 it wouiJ i ather re(|uire an effort to prevent them, 
 when the mind is intensely cc^nsidering those ob- 
 jections and considerations which have a natural 
 tendency to produce them. This is so true that 
 when persons are in the exercise of such aft'ec- 
 tions, they feel no difficulty at all in their exer- 
 cise, but wonder how any one can help feeling 
 as they do. It seems to them so natural, so easy, 
 and I may say, so almost unavoidable, that they 
 often feel and express astonishment that any one 
 should find it difficult to love, believe, or repent. 
 The course that many persons take on the sub- 
 ject of religion has often appeared wonderful to 
 me. They make themselves, their own state and 
 interests, the central point, around which their 
 own minds are continually revolving. Their 
 selfishness is so great that their own interests, 
 happiness and salvation fill their whole field of 
 vision. And with their thoughts and anxieties, 
 and whole souls clustering around their own sal- 
 vation, they complain of a hard heart — that they 
 cannot love God — that they do not repent, and 
 cannot beUeve. Being conscious that they do 
 not feel right, they are the more concerned about 
 themselves, which concern but increases their 
 embarrassment and the difficulty of exercising 
 right affections. The more deeply they feel, the 
 more they try to feel- — the greater efforts they 
 make to feel right without success, the more are 
 they confirmed in their selfishness, and the more 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 T«5 
 
 are their thoughts i^liied to their own interests, 
 and they are of course al a gieat^'i and greater 
 distance from any right state oi feeling. And 
 thus their selfish anxieties beget ineffectual 
 efforts, and these efforts but deepen their anxie- 
 ties. And if in this state, death should a|)pear 
 in a visible form before them, or the last trumpet 
 sound, and they should be summoned to the 
 solemn Judgment, it would but increase their 
 distraction, confirm and almost give omnipotence 
 to their selfishness, and render their sanctifica- 
 tion morally impossible. 
 
 4. Not by any efforts to obtain grace by works 
 of law. In my lecture on Faith, in the first 
 volume of the Evangelist, I said the following 
 things : 
 
 (i.) Should the question be proposed to a Jew, 
 *'\Vhat shall I do that I may work the works of 
 grace?" — in other words, how shall I obtain a 
 state of entire obedience to the law of God, or 
 entire sanctification ? — he would answer, keep the 
 law, both moral and ceremonial, that is, keep the 
 commandments. 
 
 (2.) To the same inquiry an Arminian would 
 answer, improve common grace, and you will 
 obtain converting grace, that is, use the means 
 of grace according to the best light you have, 
 and you will obtain the grace of salvation. In 
 this answer it is not supposed that the inquirer 
 already has faith ; but that he is in a state of 
 unbelief, and is inquiring after converting grace. 
 The answer, therefore, amounts to this : you 
 must get converting grace by your impenitent 
 

 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 ^ 
 
 '<" <Cx 
 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 fA 
 
 % 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 ^ M£ III 2.0 
 
 1- u ^°™™ 
 
 1.4 
 
 III 
 
 1.6 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 ^ < f/ ^1 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 ■'I 
 
 
 7 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 

 9 %^: 
 
 i/x 
 
1 86 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 works ; you must become holy by your hypocrisy ; 
 you must work out sanctification by sin. 
 
 (3.) To this question, most professed Calvinists 
 would make in substance the same reply. They 
 would reject the language, while they retained 
 the idea. Their direction would imply, either 
 that the inquirer already has faith, or that he 
 must perform some works to obtain it, that is, 
 that he must obtain grace by works of law. 
 
 A late Calvinistic writer admits that entire and 
 permanent sanctification is attainable. Although 
 he rejects the idea of the actual attainment of 
 such a state in this life. He supposes the con- 
 dition of attaining this state, or the way to attain 
 it, is by a diligent use of the means of grace, and 
 that the saints are sanctified just so far as they 
 make a diligent use of the means of sanctification. 
 But as he denies that any saint ever did, or will, 
 use all the means with suitable diligence, he de- 
 nies also, of course, that entire and permanent 
 sanctification ever is attained in this life. The 
 way of attaining it, according to his teaching, is 
 by the diligent use of means. If, then, this writer 
 were asked "what shall I do that I may work the 
 work of God," — or, in other words, what shall 1 
 do to obtain entire and permanent sanctification. 
 His answer, it seems, would be: "Use diligently 
 all the means of grace," that is, you must get 
 grace by works, or, with the Arminian, improve 
 common grace, and you will secure sanctifying 
 grace. ; : 
 
 Neither an Arminian, nor a Calvinist would 
 formally direct the inquirer to the law^ as the 
 ^roun4 pf Justification. But nearly the whole 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 187 
 
 Church would give directions that would amount 
 to the same thing. Their answer would be a 
 legal, and not a gospel answer. For, whatever 
 answer is given to this question, that does not 
 distinctly recogn'xze faith, as the foundation of all 
 virtue in sinners, is legal. Unless the inquirer 
 is made to understand that this is the first, grand, 
 fundamental duty, without the performance of 
 which all virtue, all giving up of sin, all accept- 
 able obedience, is impossible, he is misdirected. 
 He is led to believe that it is possible to please 
 God without faith ; and to obtain grace by works 
 of law. There are but two kinds of works — 
 works of law, and works of faith. Now il the 
 inquirer has not the "faith that works by love," 
 to set him upon any course of works to get it, is 
 certainly to get faith by works of the law. What- 
 ever is said to him that does not clearly convey 
 the truth,that both justification andsanctification 
 are by faith, without works of law, is law, and 
 not gospel. Nothing before, or without faith, 
 can possibly be done by the unbeliever, but 
 works of law. His first duty, therefore, is faith; 
 and every attempt to obtain faith by unbelieving 
 works, is to lay works at the foundation, and 
 make grace a result. It is the direct opposite of 
 gospel truth. 
 
 Take facts as they arise in every day's experi- 
 ence, to show that what I have stated is true of 
 almost all professors and non-professors. When- 
 ever a sinner begins in good earnest to agitate 
 the question, **what shall I do to be saved?" he 
 resolves as a first duty, to break of from his sins, 
 that is. in unbelief. Of course, his reformation 
 
1 88 
 
 Views oP 
 
 is only outwardi He determines to do better—^ 
 to reform in this^ thatj and the other thing, and 
 thus prepare himself to be converted. He does 
 not expect to be saved without grace and faithj 
 but he attempts to get grace by works of law. 
 
 The same is true of multitudes of anxious 
 Christians^ who are inquiring what they shall do 
 to overcome the world, the flesh, and the devil. 
 They overlook the fact, that " this is the victory 
 that overcometh the world, even our faith," that 
 it is with '*the shield of faith" that they are ** to 
 quench all the fiery darts of the wicked." They 
 ask why am I overcome by sin ? Why can I not 
 get above its power? Why am I thus the slave 
 of my appetites and passions, and the sport of 
 the devil ? They cast about for the cause of all 
 this spiritual wretchedness and death. At one 
 time, they think they have discovered it in the 
 neglect of one duty ; and at another time in the 
 neglect of another. Sometimes, they imagine 
 they have found the cause to lie in yielding to 
 one sin, and sometimes in yielding to another. 
 They put forth efforts in this direction, and in 
 that direction, and patch up their righteousness 
 on one side, while they make a rent in the other 
 side. Thus they spend years, in running around 
 in a circle, and making dams of sand across the 
 current of their own corruptions. Instead of at 
 once purifying their hearts by faith, they are en- 
 gaged in trying to arrest the overflowing of their 
 bitter waters. Why do I sin ? they inquire : and 
 casting about for the cause, they come to the 
 sage conclusion, it is because I neglect such a 
 duty, that is, be'^ause I do sin. But how shall 
 
JiANCTIFlCAtlON* 
 
 IS9 
 
 1 get rid of sin? Answer: by doing nly duty^that 
 is, by ceasing from sin. Now the real inquiry is, 
 why do they neglect their duty? Why do they 
 commit sin at all ? Where is the foundation of 
 all the this mischief? Will it be replied^ the 
 foundation of all this wickedness 11 in the corrup- 
 tion of our nature — in the wickedness of our 
 heart — in the strength of our evil propensities 
 and habits? But all this only brings us back to 
 the real inquiry again — How are this corrupt 
 nature, this wicked heart, and these sinful habits, 
 to be overcome ? I answer, by faith alone^ No 
 works of law h^ve the least tendency to overcome 
 our sins; but rather confirm the soul in self* 
 righteousness and unbelief. 
 
 The great and fundamental sin, which is at the 
 foundation on all other sin, is unbelief. The 
 first thing is, to give up that — to believe the 
 word of God. There is no breaking off from one 
 sin without this. *' Whatsoever is not of faith 
 is sin." " Without faith it is impossible to please 
 God." ' , 
 
 Thus we see, that the backslider and convict- 
 ed sinner, when agonizing to overcome sin, will 
 almost always betake themselves to works of law 
 to obtain faith. They will fast, and pray, and 
 read, and struggle, and outwardly reform, and 
 thus endeavor to obtain grace. Now all this is 
 in vain and wrong. Do you ask, shall we not 
 fast, and pray, and read, and struggle ? Shall 
 we do nothing — but sit down in Antinomian se- 
 curity and inaction ? I answer, you must do all 
 that God commands you to do ; but begin where 
 he tells you to begin, and do it in the manner 
 
igo 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 1>- 
 
 i 
 
 in which he commands you to do it; that is, in 
 t le exercise of that faith that works by love. 
 Purify your hearts by faith. BeHeve in the Son 
 of God. And say not in your heart, "who shall 
 ascend up into heaven," that is, to bring Christ 
 down from above ; or who shall descend into the 
 deep, that is, to bring up Christ again from the 
 dead. But wHat saith it? The word is nigh thee, 
 even in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that is, the 
 word of faith which we preach." 
 
 Now these facts show, that even under^the 
 gospel, almost all professors of religion, while 
 they reject the Jewish notion of justification by 
 works of the law, have after all adopted a 
 ruinous substitute for it, and suppose that, in 
 some way, they are to obtain grace by their 
 works, 
 
 5. A state of entire sanctification cannot be at- 
 tained by attempting to copy the experience of 
 others. It is very common for convicted sinners, 
 or for Christians inquiring after entire sanctifica- 
 tion, in their blindness to ask others to relate 
 th6tr experience, to mark minutely the detail of 
 all their exercises, and then set themselves to 
 pray for and make direct efforts to attain the 
 same class of exercises — not seeming to under- 
 stand that they can no more exercise feelings in 
 th6 detail like others, than they can look like 
 othftTs. Human experiences differ as human 
 countenances differ. The whole history of a 
 man's former state of mind, comes in of course 
 to modify his present and future exercises. So 
 that the precise train of affections which may be 
 rerqtrtsit6 in your case, and which will actua'lly 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 191 
 
 occur in your case, if you are ever sanctified, 
 will not in all its detail, coincide with the exer- 
 cises of any other human being. It is of vast 
 importance for you to understand, that you can 
 be no copyist in any true religious experience ; 
 aud that you are in a great danger of being de- 
 ceived by Satan, whenever you attempt to copy 
 the experience of others. I beseech you, there- 
 fore to cease from praying for or trying to obtain 
 tne precise experience of any person, whatever. 
 All truly Christian experiences are, like human 
 countenances, in their outline, so much alike as 
 to be readily known as the lineaments of the re- 
 ligion of Jesus Christ. But no farther than this 
 are they alike, any more than human counten- 
 ances are alike, 
 
 6. Not by waiting to make preparations before 
 you come into this state. Observe that the thing 
 about which you are inquiring is a state of entire 
 consecration to God. Now do not imagine that 
 this state of mind must be prefaced by a long in- 
 troduction of preparatory exercises. It is com- 
 mon for persons when inquiring upon this sub- 
 ject with earnestness, to think themselves hinder- 
 ed in their progress by a want of ♦ihis or that or 
 the other exercise or state of mind. They look 
 every where else but at the real difficulty. They 
 assign any other and every other but the true rea- 
 son for their not being already in a state of sanc- 
 tification. ~ m. 
 
 7. Not by attending meetings asking the pray- 
 ers of other Christians, or depending in any way 
 upon the means of getting into this state. By 
 this I do not intend to say that means are unne- 
 
 :'t-' 
 
 !l 1 
 
'\ ! 
 
 192 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 r 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 J) i 
 
 cessary, or that it is not through the. instrumen- 
 tality of truth, that this state of mind is induced. 
 But I do mean that while you are depending up- 
 on any instrumentality whatever, your mind is 
 diverted from the real point before you, and you 
 are never like to make this attainment. 
 
 8. Not by waiting for any particular views of 
 Christ. When persons, in the state of mind of 
 which I have been speaking, hear those who live 
 in faith describe their views of Christ, they say, 
 O, if I had such views, I could believe; 1 must 
 have these before I can believe. Now you should 
 understand that these views arj the result and 
 effect of faith. These views ui which you speak, 
 are those which faith discovers in those passages 
 of scripture which describe Christ. Faith appre- 
 hends the meaning of those passages, and sees 
 in them those very things which you expect to 
 see before you exercise faith, and which you 
 imagine would produce it. Take hold, then, 
 on the simple promise of God. Take God at 
 His word. Believe that He means just what He 
 says; and this will at once bring you into the 
 state of mind after which you inquire. 
 
 9. Not in any way which you may mark out 
 for yourself. Persons in an inquiring state are 
 very apt, without seeming to be aware of it, to 
 send imagination on before them, to stake out 
 the way, and set up a flag where they intend to 
 come out. They expect to be thus and thus 
 exercised — to have such and such peculiar views 
 and feelings, when they have attained their 
 object. Now, there probably never was a per- 
 son who did not find himself disappointed in 
 
 »,. 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 193 
 
 these respects. God says, **I will bring the 
 blind by a way that they know not. I will lead 
 them in paths that they have not known : I will 
 make darkness light before them, and crooked 
 things straight. These things will I do unto 
 them, and not forsake them." This suffering 
 your imagination to mark out your path is a 
 great hindrance to you, as it sets you upon 
 making many fruitless, and worse than fruitless, 
 attempts to attain this imaginary state of mind 
 — wastes much of your time — and greatly wearies 
 the patience, and grieves the Spirit of God. 
 While He is trying to lead you right to the point, 
 you are hauling off from the course, and insisting 
 that this which your imagination has marked 
 out is the way, instead of that which He is try- 
 ing to lead you. And thus, in your pride and 
 ignorance, you are causing much delay, and 
 abusing the long-suffering of God. He says, 
 ^*This is the way, walk ye in it." But you say, 
 no — this is the way. And thus you stand and 
 parley, and banter, while you are every moment 
 in danger of grieving the Spirit of God away 
 from you, and of losing your soul. 
 
 10. Not in any manner, or at any time or 
 place, upon which you may, in your own mind, 
 lay any stress. If there is any thing in your 
 imagination that has fixed definitely upon any 
 particular manner, time, or place, or circumstance 
 you will in all probability either be deceived by 
 the devil, or entirely disappointed in the result. 
 You will find that in all these particular items 
 on which you had laid any stress, that the 
 wisdom of man is foolishness with God — that 
 
 7 
 
 , ! 
 
194 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 li i 
 
 
 
 r; 
 
 your ways are not His ways, nor your thoughts 
 His thoughts. ''For as the heavens are higher 
 than the earth, so are His ways higher than your 
 ways, and His thoughts than your thoughts." 
 But, 
 
 II. This st'^te is to be attained by faith alone. 
 Let it be forever remembered, that '* without 
 faith it is impossible to please God," and ** what- 
 soever is not of faith, is sin." 
 
 Both justification and sanctificatiun are by 
 faith alone. Rom. iii. 30: " Seeing it is one God 
 who shall justify the circumcision by faith, and 
 the uncircumcision through faith ; " and v. i : 
 " Therefore, being justified by faith, we have 
 peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ." 
 Also ix. 30, 31 : ** What shall we say then ? that 
 the Gentiles, who followed not after righteous- 
 ness, have attained to righteousness, even the 
 rigteousness which is of faith. Bu^ Israel, who 
 followed after righteousness, hath not attained to 
 the law of righteousness. Wherefore ? Because 
 they sought it not by faith, but as it were, by 
 the works of the law." 
 
 That you may clearly understand this part of 
 the subject, I will quote again from my lecture in 
 the first volume of the Evangelist, the elements 
 that constitute saving faith. 
 
 (i.) The first element of saving faith is a realiz- 
 ing sense of the truth of the Bible. But this is 
 not alone saving faith, for Satan has this realiz- 
 ing sense of truth, which makes him tremble. 
 
 (2.) But the second element in saving faith is 
 the consent of the heart or will to the truth per- 
 ceived by the intellect. It is a cordial trus.t or 
 
 1 
 
 L 
 
 m 
 
Iz- 
 
 is 
 
 [z- 
 
 IS 
 
 Ir- 
 
 KV 
 
 SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 195 
 
 resting of the mind in those truths, and a yield- 
 k ig up of the whole being to their influence. 
 Now it is easy to see, that without the confi- 
 dence of the heart, there can be nothing but an 
 outward obedience to God. A wife without con* 
 fidence in her husband, can do nothing more than 
 perform outwardly her duty to him.. It is a con- 
 tradiction to say that without confidence, she 
 can perform her duty from the heart. The 
 same is true of parental and all other govern- 
 ments. Works of law may be performed without 
 faith : that is, we may serve from fear or hope, 
 or some selfish consideration ; but without the 
 confidence that works by love, obedience from 
 the heart is naturally impossible. N^^y, the very 
 terms, obedience from the heart without love, 
 are a contradiction. 
 
 (3.) This is the most simple and rational state 
 of mind conceivable. It is that state of mind 
 for which very young children are so remarkable. 
 Before they have been taught distrust by the 
 hypocrisy and depravity of others they seem to 
 know nothing of unbelief. They are so simple 
 and honest, that they feel entire confidence in 
 those around them. It is merely a trust in testi- 
 mony, a resting of the heart in truths perceived 
 by the intellect, a natural yielding of the volun- 
 tary powers to the testimony of God. 
 
 (4.) This state of mind is spontaneous. It is 
 not, as I have said, the result of an effort to 
 believe, but the natural resting or reposing of the 
 mind in the truth of God. And when the soul 
 believes, all that it can say is, that "while I 
 mused the fire burned," when I thought on the 
 
196 
 
 VIF.WS OF 
 
 trutli lo 1)0 believed, ere I was aware, I found 
 myself believing. As I have already said, 1 do 
 not mean that this is an involuntary state of 
 mind, but that it is voluntary in so high a sense 
 as not to be the result of effort, but the joyful, 
 and natural, and easy yielding up of the mind to 
 the influence of truth. 
 
 (5.) Faith discovers the real meaning, and 
 apprehends the fulness of those passages that 
 describe Christ. Faith therefore presents Christ 
 to the mind not as at a distance, but as near, not 
 as enveloped in clouds: but, in those passages 
 that describe Him, is beheld a fulness, and a 
 glory, and a surpassing loveliness that over- 
 power and melt the soul. 
 
 (6.) The truths to be believed, in order to 
 induce this state of mind, are those which com- 
 prise "the recofd that God has given of his Son." 
 The mind needs to apprehend God in Christ. 
 To be like God, we must know what He is. To 
 be led to a spontaneous consecration of all to 
 Him, our selfishness must be overcome by a 
 knowledge of what God is. And this knowledge 
 is to be obtained only by seeing God in Christ. 
 For this very purpose, God took to Himself 
 human nature, that He might reveal Himself to 
 the sons of men, and thus possess their minds of 
 a true knowledge of His character. 
 
 (7.) The natural and certain effect of their 
 knowing God is a state of entire consecration to 
 Him. 1 have said that while individuals are 
 taken up with contemplating themselves, their 
 own characters, dangers, and troubles, they can- 
 not be sanctified, because there is no tendency in 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 197 
 
 1 
 O 
 .f 
 
 e 
 
 I, 
 
 i 
 t 
 t 
 t 
 
 s 
 
 R\icb considerations to produce tliis state. They 
 may dwell upon their own misery, or their 
 v/retchedness to all eternity, without finding it 
 possible to consecrate themselves to God, for 
 what is there in such considerations that can in 
 any way produce such a result? It is a consid- 
 eration of the infinite excellence of Christ's 
 character, and this alone that can inspire faith 
 or love. If, therefore, you ever expect to trust 
 in God, and love Him with all your heart, you 
 must acquaint yourselves with the reasons for 
 thus loving and trusting Him. You must know 
 God. You must have the true knowledge of God. 
 God, and not yourselves, must he the object of 
 your thoughts. Cease then, I beseech you, to 
 expect to be sanctified by any works of your 
 own, or any direct efforts to feel or to do more 
 or less, and remember *' that faith cometh by 
 hearing." In other words — to understand and 
 believe the record that God hath given oi His 
 Son, will at once give you an experimental 
 acquaintance with the truth, that *'the blood of 
 Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin." 
 
 The New and the Old dispensation differ in 
 two respects. 
 
 1. The New is a fuller and more perfect rev- 
 elation of Christ, or of those things that are in- 
 dispensable to sanctification. 
 
 2. There is a vastly greater amount of the 
 Holy Spirit's influence exerted under this dis- 
 pensation. The Old made nothing perfect, be- 
 cause of the obscure nature of the revelation of 
 •Christ, and because there was not such a degree 
 of divine influence as fully to possess the niind 
 
I 
 
 ft 
 
 ft 
 
 % 
 
 ill 
 
 a 
 
 I9S 
 
 VtKWS OP 
 
 of the truths indispensable to permanent sancti-' 
 fication. The mind must know enough of God 
 to clay selfishness, and without this, neither love 
 nor permanent sanctification is possible. The 
 New, blessed be God, with the influences of the 
 Holy Spirit) has brought us into the clear sun- 
 light, and so revealed God as to overcome sin. 
 
 In conclusion 1 woi-.ld remark: 
 
 I. That it is useless to speculate upon any 
 supposed distinction that might have been in the 
 Apostle's mind between the soul and spirit of 
 man, when he penned the passage which stands 
 at the head of this discourse. I undercland the 
 p'*ayer of the Apostle to be for the entire conse- 
 cration of the whole being to the service of God. 
 I need not dwell with any more particularity upon 
 the text, except it be to mention some things 
 which I suppose are implied in the entire sancti- 
 fication of the bo.ly. 
 
 (i.) I understaiivl Ihe sanctification of the body 
 to iiT(p)v the entire consecration, by the soul, of 
 ail its ;r, mbers to the service of God. The body 
 is to le regarded merely as the instrument of 
 thfi you; : hrough which it manifests itself, and by 
 whuvli it fulfils its desires. 
 
 (2.) The entire sanctification of the body im- 
 plies also the entire consecration of all its appe- 
 tites and passions to the service of God, that is, 
 that all its appetites shall be used only for the 
 purposes for which they were designed, not to 
 be the masters, but the servants of the soul, not 
 to lead the soul away from God, but to subserve 
 the highest interests of the physical organization. 
 
 (3.) It implies keeping the body under, and 
 
vte 
 
 SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 199 
 
 4 
 
 bringing it into subjection — so that no appetite 
 or passion of the body is indulged merely for the 
 sake of the indulgence — that no appetite or pas- 
 sion is to be at any time consulted or its indul- 
 gence allowed but for the glory of God, to an- 
 swer the end of our being, and to render us in 
 the highest degree useful. ThiC grand error of 
 mankind is, that the soul has been debased even 
 to be the slave of the body, that appetite and 
 passion have ruled, that the "fleshly mind which 
 is enmity against God," has been suffered to be- 
 come the law of the soul, and hence the Apostle 
 complains that he saw "a law in his members 
 warring against the law of his mind, bringing 
 him into captivity to the law of sin and death," 
 which was in his members. Hence also, it is 
 sa;d that "if ye live aftei the flesh ye shall die," 
 that " to mind the flesh is enmity with God," 
 that, "the minding of the flesh is death," that 
 "he that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh 
 reap corruption." In short it is every where in 
 the Bible expressly taught, that one great error 
 and sin of mankind is the indulgence of the flesh. 
 Now the entire sanctification of the body implies 
 the denial of the lusts of the flesh, that "we put 
 on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provi- 
 sion for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof," 
 that the appetites and passions be restrained and 
 entirely subjugated to the highest interest and 
 perfection of the soul and to the glory of God. 
 The highest sense in which the body may be 
 sanctified in this life implies: 
 
 a. The strictest temperance in all things. By 
 temperance I mean the moderate use of things 
 
 V. 
 
200 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 r 
 
 that are useful, and total abstinence from things 
 that are pernicious. 
 
 b. It implies also the utter denial of all the 
 artificial appetites of the body. By artificial 
 appetites I mean all those appetites that are not 
 natural to man previous to all depravity of the 
 system by any kind of abuse or violation of its 
 laws. Among the artificial appetites are all those 
 hankerings after various poisons, narcotics, and 
 innutritions stimulants that are in almost uni- 
 versal use, such as tobacco, tea, coffee and the 
 like. All such substances are utterly inconsistent 
 with perfect temperance — are worse than useless, 
 and produce only a temporary excitement at 
 the expense of certain and permanent debility. 
 They deceive mankind on the same principle 
 that alcohol has so long deceived men, and 
 though not to the same degree injurious and in- 
 consistent with the highest well being of the body 
 and soul, yet they are as really so, and therefore 
 utterly unlawful. And nothing but ignorance 
 can prevent their use in any instance as an article 
 of diet from being sin ; and v/hen the means of 
 knowledge are at hand, this ignorance itself be- 
 comes sin. Consequently persevering in this use 
 under such circumstances is not only inconsistent 
 with entire and permanent sanctification but 
 also with justification and salvation. 
 
 c. Temperance implies a knowledge of, and 
 compliance with all the laws of our physical 
 system. There is scarcely any branch of know- 
 ledge more important to mankind than a know- 
 ledge of the structure and laws of their own 
 being. Nor is there scarcely any subject, upon 
 
 ,, 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 201 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 which men are so generally and so shame- 
 fully ignorant. It seems not at all to be known 
 by mankind in general, or even suspected, that 
 every thing about their bodies is regulated by 
 laws, as certain as the law of gravitation ; and 
 that a perfect knowledge of and conformity to 
 these laws, would render permanent health as 
 certain as the regular motion of the planets. 
 The world is full of disease and premature death, 
 and men speak of these things as mysterious 
 providences of God, without ever so much as 
 dreaming that they are the natural and certain 
 results of the most outrageous and reckless vio- 
 lations of the laws of the human constitution. 
 
 d. Temperance in all things implies correct 
 dietic and other habits in respect to exercise and 
 rest. And in short, such obedience in all re- 
 spects to the physiological laws of the constitu- 
 tion as to promote in the highest degree its phy- 
 sical perfection, and thus preserve it in a state in 
 which it will be in the highest degree capable of 
 being used by the soul, to fulfil all the will of 
 God. There are no doubt, occasions on which 
 the bodily strength and the body itself may be 
 sacrificed to the interests of the soul, and of the 
 Redeemer's kingdom—cases in which the viola- 
 tion of physical law may be justifiable and even 
 a duty, where the kingdom of Christ demands 
 the sacrifice. Christ gave up His body a sacri- 
 fice. The Apostles and Martyrs gave up theirs. 
 And in every age multitudes have given them- 
 selves up to labors for the kingdom of Christ, 
 that have soon ended their mortal lives. This is 
 not inconsistent with the highest consecration of 
 
\09, 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 the body, and of the whole being to God. But 
 on the other hand, it is one of the highest in- 
 stances of such consecration. But, where the 
 circumstances do not demand it, the sanctifica- 
 tion of the body implies that its strength shall 
 not be exhausted, nor any of its powers debilitated 
 or injured by any neglect of exercise, or by any 
 over-working of its organs, or by any violation 
 of its laws whatever. It implies the utmost 
 regularity in all our habits of eating, drinking, 
 sleeping, labor, rest, exercise, and in short a 
 strictly religious regard to all those things that 
 can contribute to our highest perfection of body 
 and soul. Can a glutton, who is stupified two 
 or three times a day with his food, be entirely 
 consecrated, either body or soul, to God ? Cer- 
 tainly not. His table is a snare, and a trap, and 
 a stumbling block to him. Can an epicure, 
 whose dainty palate loathes every correctly pre- 
 pared article of diet, and who demands that every 
 meal should be prepared with seasonings and 
 condiments highly injurious to the health of his 
 body and the well-being of his soul — can he be 
 in a state of entire consecration to God? No! 
 surely. His "god is his belly." His *' glory is 
 in his shame." He " minds earthly things." 
 And an Apostle would tell him, "even vveeping, 
 that his end is destruction." It is appaling to 
 see the various forms of disease and wretched- 
 ness with which mankind are cursed on account 
 of their wanton disregard of the laws of their 
 being. The highest powers of the human mind 
 can never be developed, nor its highest perfection 
 attained, in a diseased body ; and, probably, 
 
 (I 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 203 
 
 
 .') 
 
 scarcely a single member of the human family in 
 his present state, has any thing like perfect 
 health. Many suppose themselves to be perfectly 
 healthy, simply because they never saw a person 
 who had perfect health, and also because they 
 do not know enough of themselves to know that 
 many of their organs may be fatally diseased 
 without their being aware of it. 
 
 The influence of dietetic and other habits upon 
 the health of the body is known to but a very 
 limited extent among mankind, and far less is it 
 understood that whatever affects the body, inevi- 
 tably affects the mind, and that the temper and 
 spirit of a man are in a great measure modified 
 by the state of his health. It is known to some 
 extent that an acid stomach begets fretfulness, 
 and that certain nervous diseases, as they are 
 called, greatly affect the mind. But it is not so 
 generally known as it ought to be, that all our 
 dietetic and other physiological habits have a 
 powerful influence in forming and moulding our 
 moral character. Not necessarily, but by way 
 of temptation, acting through our bodily organs, 
 all stimulants and all things injurious to the 
 body act most perniciously upon the mind. Let 
 me say, therefore, beloved, in one word, as I 
 cannot dwell upon this subject longer, that if you 
 expect the sanctification of body, soul and spirit, 
 you must acquaint yourselves with the true 
 principles of temperance and physiological re- 
 form, and most religiously conform yourselves to 
 them, not only in the aggregate but in the detail. 
 
 But I have already protracted the discussion 
 of this subject so long that I will not add morq 
 
204 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 at present, except to conclude what I have to say 
 with several brief 
 
 1 
 
 
 remarks: 
 
 1. There is an importance to be attached to 
 the sanctification of the body, of which very few 
 persons appear to be aware. Indeed unless the 
 bodily appetites and powers be consecrated to 
 the service of God — unless we learn to eat and 
 drink, and sleep, and wake, and labor, and rest, 
 for the glory of God, entire and permanent sancti- 
 fication is out of the question. 
 
 2. It is plain, that very few persons are aware 
 of the great influence which their bodies have 
 over their minds, and of the indispensable neces- 
 sity of bringing their bodies under, and keeping 
 them in subjection. < 
 
 3. Few people seem to keep the fact steadily 
 in view, that unless their bodies be rightly man- 
 aged, they will be so fierce and over-powering a 
 source of temptation to the mind, as inevitably 
 to lead it into sin. If they indulge themselves in 
 a stimulating diet, and in the use of those condi- 
 ments that irritate and rasp the nervous system, 
 their bodies will be of course and of necessity the 
 source of powerful and incessant temptation to 
 evil tempers and vile affections. If persons were 
 aware of the great influence which the body has 
 over the mind, they would realize that they can- 
 not be too careful to preserve the nervous system 
 from the influence of every improper article of 
 food or drink, and preserve that system as they 
 would the apple of their eye, from every influence 
 that could impair its functions. 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 205 
 
 4. No one who has opportunity to acquire in- 
 formation in regard to the laws of life and health, 
 and the best means of sanctifying the whole 
 spirit, soul, and body, can be guiltless if he neg- 
 lects these means of knowledge. Every man is 
 bound to make the structure and laws of both 
 body and mind the subject of as tho»ough investi- 
 gation as his circumstances will permit, to inform 
 himself in regard to what are the true principles 
 of perfect temperance, and in what way the most 
 can be made of all his powers of body and mind 
 for the glory of God. 
 
 5. From what has been said in this discourse, 
 the reason why the Church has not been entirely 
 sanctified is very obvious. As a body the Church 
 has not believed that such a state was attainable 
 in this life. And this is a sufficient reason, and 
 indeed the best of all reasons for her not having 
 attained it, 
 
 6. From what has been said, it is easy to see 
 that the true question in regard to entire sanctifi- 
 cation in this life is, is it attainable as a matter 
 of fact ? Son^e have thought the proper question 
 to be are Christians entirely sanctified in this 
 life ? Now certainly this is not the question that 
 needs to be discussed. Suppose it to be fully 
 granted that they are not ; this fact is sufficiently 
 g,ccounted for, by the consideration that thpy do 
 not know or believe it to be attainable in this life, 
 If they believed it to be attainable, it might no 
 longer be true that they do not attain it, But if 
 provision really is made for this attainment, it 
 amounts to nothing unless it be recognized s^nd 
 believed, The thing needed then is to bring the 
 
■ 'r - ^ ' W i w i l i^ 
 
 i< 
 
 m I 
 
 ilf 
 
 206 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 Church to see and believe, that this is her high 
 privilege and her duty. It is not enough to say 
 that it is attainable, simply on the ground of na- 
 tural ability. This is as true of the devil, and of 
 the lost in hell, as of men in this world. But 
 unless grace has put this attainment so within 
 our reach, a^ that it may be aimed at with the 
 reasonable prospect of success, there is, as a 
 matter of fact, no more provision for our entire 
 sanctification in this life than for the devil's. It 
 seems to be trifling with mankind, merely to 
 maintain the attainability of this state on the 
 ground of natural ability only. The real ques- 
 tion is, has grace brought this attainment so 
 within our reach, that we may reasonably expect 
 to experience it in this life ? It is admitted that 
 on the ground of natural ability both wicked men 
 and devils have the power to be entirely holy. 
 But it is also admitted that their indisposition to 
 use this power aright is so complete, that as a 
 matter of fact, they never will, unless influenced 
 to do so by the grace of God. I insist, therefore, 
 that the real question is, whether the provisions 
 of the gospel are such, that, did the Church fully 
 understand and lay hold upon the proffered grace 
 she might, as a matter of fact, attain this state. 
 7. We see how irrelevant and absurd the ob- 
 jection is, that as a matter of fact the Church has 
 not attained this state, and therefore it is not 
 attainable. Why, if they have not understood it 
 to be attainable, it no more proves its unattain- 
 ableness, than the fact that the heathen have not 
 embraced the gospel proves that that they will 
 not when they know it, 
 
 f 
 
N 
 
 SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 207 
 
 It 
 
 8. You see the necessity of fully preaching 
 and insisting upon this doctrine ad of calling it 
 by its true scriptural name. It is astonishing to 
 see to what an extent there is a tendency among 
 men to avoid the use of scriptural language, and 
 cleave to the language of such men as Edwards 
 and other great and good divines. They object 
 to the terms of perfection and entire sanctifica- 
 tion, and prefer to use the terms entire consecra- 
 tion, and other such terms as have been common 
 in the Church. 
 
 Now, I would by no means contend about the 
 use of words ; but still it does appear to me, to 
 be of great importance, that we use scripture 
 language and insist upon men being ^^ perfect as 
 their Father in heaven is perfect," and being 
 *' sanctified wholly, body, soul and spirit." This 
 appears to me to be the more important for this ^ 
 reason, that if we use the language to which the 
 Church has been accustomed upon this subject, 
 she will, as she has done, misunderstand us, and 
 will not get before her mind that which we really 
 mean. That this is so is manifest from the fact 
 that the great mass of the Church Arill express 
 alarm at the use of the terms perfection and en- 
 tire sanctification, who will neither express or 
 feel any such alarm if we speak of entire conse- 
 cration. This demonstrates that they do not, by 
 any means, understand these terms as meaning 
 the same thing. And although I understand 
 them as meaning precisely the same thing, yet I 
 find myself obliged to use the terms perfection 
 and entire sanctification to possess their minds 
 of my real meaning. This is Bible language. 
 
2o8 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 It is unobjectionable language. And inasmuch 
 as the Church understands entire consecration to 
 mean something less than entire sanctification or 
 Christian perfection, it does seem to me of great 
 importance, that ministers should use a phrase- 
 ology which will call the attention of the Church 
 to the real doctrine of the Bible upon this sub- 
 ject. And I would submit the question with 
 great humility to my beloved brethren in the min- 
 istry, whether they are not aware, that Christians 
 have entirely too low an idea of what is implied 
 in entire consecration, and whether it is not use- 
 ful and best to adopt a phraseoJogj^ in addressing 
 them that shall call their attention to the real 
 meaning of the words which they use ? 
 '^'9. Young converts have not been allowed so 
 much as to indulge the thought that they could 
 live even for a day wholly without sin. They 
 have as a general thing no more been taught to 
 expect to live even for a day without sin, than 
 they have been taught to expect immediate trans- 
 lation, soul and body, to Heaven. Of course 
 they have not known that there was any other 
 way, than t^ go on in sin, and however shocking 
 and distressing the necessity has appeared to 
 them in the ardor of their first love, still they 
 have looked upon it as an unalterable fact, that 
 to be in a great measure in bondage to sin is a 
 thing of course while they live in this world. 
 Now with such an orthodoxy as this, with the 
 conviction in the Church and ministry so ripe, 
 settled, and universal, that the utmost that the 
 grace of God can do for men in this world is to 
 bring them to repentance and to leave them to 
 
 iA»i> .>j' **;-c 
 
 !•; J f'riii 
 
 :" » i ' 
 
 V t.t • 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 209 
 
 
 live and die in a state of sinning ar. . repenting, 
 is it at all wonderful that the state of religion 
 should be as it really has been ? 
 
 In looking over the results of preaching the 
 doctrine of this discourse to Christians, I feel 
 compelled to say, that so far as all observation 
 can go, I have the same evidence, that it is truth 
 and as such is owned and blessed oi God to the 
 sanctification of Christians, that I have, that 
 those are truths which I have so often preached 
 to sinners, and which have been so often and so 
 eminently blessed of God to their conversion. 
 This doctrine seems as naturally calculated to 
 elevate the piety of Christians, and as actually to 
 result in the elevation of th'^ir piety under the 
 blessing of God as those truths that, when an 
 Evangelist, I preached to sinners, were to their 
 conversion. 
 
 10. Christ has been in a great measure lost 
 sight of in some of His most important relations 
 to mankind. He has been known and preached 
 as a pardoning and justifying Saviour, but as an 
 actually indwelling and reigning Saviour in the 
 heart, He has been but little known. I was 
 struck with a remark, a few years since, of a 
 brother whom I have from that time greatly 
 loved, who had been for a time in a desponding 
 state of mind, borne down with a great sense of 
 his own vileness, but seeing no way of escape. 
 At an evening meeting the Lord so revealed Him- 
 self to him as entirely to overcome the strength 
 of his body, and his brethren were obliged to 
 carry him home. The next time I saw him he 
 exclaimed to me with a pathos I shall never for- 
 
 *-M ■'. V^; 
 

 ^rf> 
 
 VIF.WS OF 
 
 t 
 
 got, " Brother Finney, the Church have buried 
 the Saviour." Now it is no doubt true, that the 
 Church have become awfully alienated from 
 Christ — have in a great measure lost a know- 
 ledge of what He is and ought to be to her — and 
 a great many of her members, I have good reason 
 to know, in different parts of the country, are 
 saying, with deep and overpowering emotion, 
 '* They have taken away my Lord, and 1 know 
 not where they have laid Him." 
 
 II. With all her orthodoxy, the Church has 
 b^en for a long time much nearer to Unitarian- 
 ism than she has imagined. This remark may 
 shock some of my readers, and you may think it 
 savors of censoriousness. But, beloved, I am 
 sure it is said in no such spirit. These are ''the 
 words of truth and soberness." So little has 
 been kno vn of Christ, that, if I am not entirely 
 mistaken, there are multitudes in the orthodox 
 churches who do not know Christ, and who in 
 heart are Unitarians, while in theory they are 
 orthodox. 
 
 I have been, within the last two or three years, 
 deeply impressed with the fact that so many 
 professors of religion are coming to the ripe con- 
 viction that they never knew Christ. There 
 have been in this place almost continual develop- 
 ments of this fact, and I doubt whether there is a 
 minister in the land who will present Christ as 
 the gospel presents Him, in all the fulness of his 
 official relations to mankind, who will not be 
 struck and agonized with developments that will 
 assure him that the great mass of professors of 
 religion do not know the Saviour. It has been 
 
 1 1 'i 
 
t 
 
 SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 211 
 
 to my own mind a painful and a serious question, 
 what I ought to think of the spiritual state of 
 those who know so Httle of the blessed Jesus. 
 That none of them have been converted, I dare 
 not say. And yet, that they have been converted, 
 I am afraid to say. 1 would not for the world 
 '* quench the smoking flax or break the bruised 
 reed," or say any thing to stumble or weaken 
 the feeblest lamb of Christ; and yet my heart is 
 sore pained, my soul is sick ; my bowels of com- 
 passion yearn over the Church of the blessed 
 God. O, the dear Church of Christ ! What 
 does she m her present state know of gospel rest 
 of that '* great and perfect peace which they 
 have whose minds are stayed on God." 
 
 12. If I am not mistaken, there is an extensive 
 feeling among Christians and ministers, that 
 much is not, that ought to be known and may be 
 known of the Saviour. Many are beginning to 
 find that the Saviour is to them "as a root out of 
 dry ground, having neither form nor comeliness:" 
 that the gospel which they preach and hear is 
 not to them "the power of God unto salvation" 
 from sin ; that it is not to them "glad tidings of 
 great joy;" that it is not to them a peace-giving 
 gospel; and many are feeling that if Chri:.t has 
 done for them all that His grace is able to do in 
 this life, that the plan of salvation is sadly de- 
 fective, that Christ is not, after all, a Saviour 
 suited to their necessities — that the religion 
 which they have is not suited to the world in 
 which they live — that.it does not, cannot, make 
 them free : but leaves them in a state of perpet- 
 ual bondage. Their souls are agonized and 
 
212 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 
 i'f 
 
 tossed to and fro without a resting place. Mul- 
 titrdes also are beginning to see that there are 
 many passages, both in the Old and New Testa- 
 ments, which they do not understand ; that the 
 promises seem to mean much more than they 
 have ever realized, and that the gospel and the 
 plan of salvation, as a whole, must be something 
 very different from that which they have as yet 
 apprehended. There are great multitudes all 
 over the country who are inquiring more earnest- 
 ly than ever before after a knowledge of that 
 Jesus who is to save His people from their sins. 
 
 A fact was related in my hearing a short time 
 since, that illustrates in an affecting manner the 
 agonizing state of mind in which many Chris- 
 tian's are, in regard to the present state of many 
 of the ministers of Christ. I had the statement 
 from the brother himself, who was the subject of 
 his narrative. A sister in the church to which 
 he preached became so sensible that he did not 
 know Christ, as he ought to know Him, that she 
 was full of unutterable agony, and on one occa- 
 sion, after he had been preaching, fell down at 
 his feet with tears and strong beseechings that 
 he would exercise faith in Christ. At another 
 time she was so impressed with a sense of his 
 deficiency in this respect, as a minister, that she 
 addressed him in the deepest anguish of her soul 
 crying out — **0, I shall die, I shall certainly die, 
 unless you will receive Christ as a full Saviour," 
 and, attempting to approach him, she sunk iown 
 helpless, overcome with *agony and travail of 
 soul, at his feet. 
 
 Xh^r^ is rpanifpstly a gr§at struggle in the 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 213 
 
 Kt^jt* 
 
 minds of multitudes, that the Saviour may be 
 more fully revealed to the Church, that the pres- 
 ent ministry especially may know Him, and the 
 power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of 
 His sufferings, and be made conformable to His 
 •death. 
 
 13. If the doctrine of this discourse is true, 
 you gfee the immense importance of preaching it 
 clearly and fully in revivals of religion. When 
 the hearts of converts are warm with their first 
 love, then is the time to make them fully ac- 
 quainted with their Saviour, to hold Him up in 
 all His offices an^ relations, so as to break the 
 power of every sin — to break them off for ever 
 from all self-dependence, and to lead them to 
 receive Christ as a present, perfect, everlasting 
 Saviour. 
 
 14. Unless this course be taken, their back- 
 sliding is inevitable. You might as well expect 
 to roll back the waters of Niagara with your 
 hand, us to stay the tide of their corruption 
 without a deep, and thorough, and experimental 
 acquaintance with the Saviour. And if they are 
 thrown upon their own watchfulness and resour- 
 ces, for strength against temptation, instead of 
 being directed to the Saviour, they are certain 
 to become discouraged and fall into continual 
 bondage. 
 
 15. But before I conclude these remarks, I 
 must not omit to notice the indispensable neces- 
 sity of a willingness to do the will of God, in 
 order rightly to understand this doctrine. If a 
 man is unwilling to give up his sins, to deny 
 himself all ungodliness and every \\rorldly lust — ■ 
 
 / 
 
 » ? 
 
214 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 , :^ 
 
 ;■; 
 
 :- 
 
 if he is unwilling to be set apart wholly to the 
 service of the Lord, he will either reject this 
 doctrine altogether, or only intellectually admit 
 it, without receiving it into his heart. It is an 
 imminently dangerous state of mind to assent to 
 this or any other doctrine of the gospel, and not 
 reduce it to practice. 
 
 i6. Much evil has been done by those- who 
 have professedly embraced this doctrine in theory 
 and rejected it in practice. Their spirit and tem- 
 per have been such as to lead those who saw 
 them to infer that the tendency of the doctrine 
 itself is bad. And it is not to be doubted that 
 some who have professed to have experienced the 
 power of this doctrine in their hearts, have 
 greatly disgraced religion by exhibiting any 
 other spirit than that of an entirely sanctified 
 one. But why, in a Christian land, should this 
 be a stumbling block ? When the heathen see 
 persons from Christian nations who professedly 
 adopt the Christian system, exhibit on their 
 shores and in their countries, the spirit which 
 many of them do, they infer that this is the ten- 
 dency of the Christian reHgion. To this our 
 Missionaries reply that they are only nominal 
 Chrisytians, only speculative, not real believers. 
 Should thousands of our cJmrch members go 
 among them, they would have the same reason 
 to complain, and might reply to the Missionaries, 
 these are not only nominal, believers, but profess 
 to have experienced the Christian religion in 
 their own hearts. Now, what would the Mission- 
 aries reply? Why, to be sure, that they were 
 professors of reHgion ; but that they really did 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 215 
 
 not know Christ ; that they were deceiving them- 
 selves with a name to live, while in fact they 
 were dead in trespasses and sins. 
 V It has often been a matter of astonishment to 
 me that in a Christian land it should be a stum- 
 bling block to any, that some, or if you please, 
 a majority of those who profess to receive and to 
 have experienced the truth of this doctrine, 
 should exhibit an unchristian spirit. What if 
 the same objection should be brought against the 
 Christian religion ; against any and every doc- 
 trine of the gospel; that the great majority, and 
 even nine-tenths of all the professed believers 
 and receivers of those doctrines were proud, 
 worldly, selfish, and exhibited any thing but a 
 right spirit ? Now, this objection might be made 
 with truth to the professedly Christian Church. 
 But would the conclusiveness of such an objec- 
 tion be admitted in Christian lands ? Who does 
 not know the ready answer to all such objections 
 as these, that the doctrines of Christianity do 
 not sanction such conduct, and that it is not the 
 real belief of them that begets any such spirit or 
 conduct ; that the Christian religion abhors all 
 these objectionable things. And now suppose it 
 should be replied to this, that a tree is known by 
 its fruits, and that so great a majority of the pro- 
 fessors of religion could not exhibit such a spirit, 
 unless it were the tendency of Christianity itself 
 to beget it. Now, who would not reply to this, that 
 this state of mind and course ol conduct ol which 
 they complain, is the natural state of man unin- 
 fluenced by the gospel of Christ ; that in these 
 instances, on account of unbelief, the gospel has 
 
2l6 
 
 VIEWS OP 
 
 failed to correct what was already wrong, and 
 that it needed not the influence of any corrupt 
 doctrine to produce that state of mind? It ap- 
 pears to me that these objectors against this 
 doctrine on account of the fact that some and 
 perhaps many who have professed to receive it, 
 have exhibited a wrong spirit, take it for granted 
 that the doctrine produces this spirit instead of 
 considering that a wrong spirit is natural to men, 
 and that the difficulty is that through unbelief 
 the gospel has failed to correct what was before 
 wrong. They reason as if they supposed the 
 human heart needed something to beget within 
 it a bad spirit, and as if they supposed that a 
 belief in this doctrine had made men wicked, in- 
 stead of recognizing the fact that they were 
 before wicked, and that, through unbelief, the 
 gospel has failed to make them holy. 
 
 17. But let it not be understood, that I sup- 
 pose or admit that any considerable number who 
 have professed to have received this doctrine in- 
 to their hearts, have as a matter of fact exhibited 
 a bad spirit. I must say that it has been eminent- 
 ly otherwise so far as my own observation ex- 
 tends. And I am fully convinced, that if I have 
 ever seen Christianity in the world, and the 
 spirit of Christ, that it has been exhibited by 
 those, as a general thing, who have professed to 
 believe, and to have received this doctrine into 
 their hearts. 
 
 18. How amazingly important it is, that the 
 ministry and the Church should come fully to a 
 right understanding and embracing of this doc- 
 trine. O it will be like life from the dead. The pro- 
 
 1 
 
 ' 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 217 
 
 , 
 '' 
 
 "V* 
 
 clamation of it is now regarded by multitudes as 
 *' good tidings of great joy." From every quar- 
 ter, we get the gladsome intelligence, that souls 
 are entering into the deep rest and peace of the 
 gospel, that they are awaking to a life of faith and 
 love — and that instead ofsinking down into Anti- 
 nomianism, they are eminently more benevolent, 
 active, holj^ and useful than ever before — that 
 they are eminently more prayerful, watchful, dil- 
 igent, meek, sober-minded and heavenly in all 
 their lives. This as a matter of fact, is the char- 
 acter of those, to a very great extent at least, with 
 whom I havebeen acquainted, who have embrac- 
 ed this doctrine. I say this for no other reason than 
 to relieve the anxieties of those who have heard 
 very strange reports, and whose honest fears have 
 been awakened in regard to the tendency of this 
 doctrine. 
 
 19. Much pains have been taken to demon- 
 strate that our views of this subject are wrong. 
 But in all the arguing to this end, hitherto, there 
 has been one grand defect. None of the oppo- 
 nents of this doctrine have yet showed us **a 
 more excellent way and told us what is right." 
 It is certainly impossible to ascertain what is 
 wrong on any moral subject unless we have be- 
 fore us the standard of right. The mind must 
 certainly be acquainted with the rule of right, 
 before it can reasonably pronounce any thing 
 wrong, for " by the law is the knowledge of sin." 
 It is therefore certainly absurd for the opponents 
 of the doctrine of entire sanctification in this life 
 to pronounce this doctrine wrong without being 
 able to show us what is right. To what purpose 
 
2l8 
 
 VIEWS OF 
 
 then, I pray, do they argue who insist upon this 
 view of the subject as wrong while they do not so 
 much as attempt to tell us what is right? It 
 cannot be pretended that the scripture teaches 
 nothing upon this subject. And the question is, 
 what does it teach ? Until it is definitely ascer- 
 tained what the Bible does teach, it can by no 
 possibility be shown what is contrary to its 
 teaching. We therefore call upon the denoun- 
 cers of this doctrine, and we think the demand 
 reasonable, to inform us definitely, how holy 
 Christians may be and are expected to be in this 
 life. And it should be distinctly understood, that 
 until they bring forward the rule laid down in 
 the scripture upon this subject, it is but arro- 
 gance to pronounce any thing wrong. Just as if 
 they should pronounce anything to be sin with- 
 out comparing it with the standard of right. 
 Until they inform us what the scriptures do 
 teach we must beg leave to be excused from sup- 
 posing ourselves obliged to believe that what is 
 taught in this discourse is wrong or contrary to 
 the language and spirit of inspiration. This is 
 certainly a question that ought not to be thrown 
 loosely by without being settled. The thing at 
 which we aim is to establish a definite rule or to 
 explain what we suppose to be the real and ex- 
 plicit teachings of the Bible upon this point. 
 And we do think it absurd that the opponents of 
 this view should attempt to convince us of error, 
 without so much as attempting to show what the 
 truth upon the subject is. As if we could easily 
 enough decide what is contrarv to right, without 
 possessing any knowledge of right. We beseech, 
 
 i 
 
 'vir 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 ^ig 
 
 i:. 
 
 I 
 
 w 
 
 therefore, our brethren in discussing this subject 
 to show us what is right. And, if this is not the 
 truth, to show us a more excellent way, and 
 convince us that we are wrong by showing us 
 what is right. For we have no hope of ever 
 seeing that we are wrong until we can see that 
 some thing else than what is advocated in this 
 discourse is right. 
 
 20. I have by no means given this subject so 
 ample a discussion as I might and should have 
 done, but for my numerous cares and responsi- 
 bilities. I have been obliged to write in the 
 m idst of the excitemc^nt and labor of a revival of 
 religion, and do not by any means suppose, either 
 that I have exhausted the subject, or so ably de- 
 fended it as I might have done, had I been in 
 other circumstances. But, dearly beloved, under 
 the circumstances, I have done what I could, 
 and thank my Heavenly Father that I have been 
 spared to say so much in defence of the great, 
 leading, central truth of revelation — the entire 
 
 SANCTIFICATION OF THE CHURCH BY THE SpIRIT OF 
 
 Christ. 
 
 And now, blessed and beloved brethren and 
 sisters in the Lord, *' let me beseech you, by the 
 mercies of God that you present your bodies a 
 living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, 
 which is your reasonable service." " And may 
 the very God of peace sanctify you wholly ; and 
 I pray God your whole spirit, and soul, and body, 
 be preserved blameless unto the coming of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is He that calleth 
 you, who also will do it." 
 
IiITERATURE 
 
 PUBLISHED AND FOR SjlLE 
 
 AT THE 
 
 Toronto Willard Tract Depository. 
 
 ALL BOOKS SENT POST FREE. 
 
 COMPLETE CATALOGUES SENT ON APPLICATION. 
 
 Daily Helps to the Higher Life. By 
 
 Rev. W. Gluyas Pascoe. Extra cloth $i 50- 
 
 Mildmay Conference. A most vahiable 
 
 book for Christians. Nett o 45' 
 
 The Oxford Meetings. Account of the 
 Union Meetings for the Promotion of 
 Scriptural Holiness, held at Oxford, 
 England, from August 29th to Septem- 
 ber 7th, 1874. Price, paper boards, 
 50C. nett; cloth, nett o 75 
 
 The Brighton Convention Report, be- 
 ing ten days Convention for promotion 
 of Holiness, held at Brighton, May 
 29th. Cheap edition, paper 30C., cloth 
 nett o 50' 
 
 4 
 
 - 
 
A 
 
 ^.l 
 
 TORONTO WILLARD TRACT DEPOSITORY'. 
 
 New and enlarged edition, cloth, nett $i oo 
 " " ** sewed " o 70 
 
 The Higher Christian Life. By Board- 
 man. Nett o 20 
 
 Work for Jesus* The Experience and 
 Teachings ol Mr. and Mrs. Boardman. 
 With Introduction by Dr. Cullis o 60 
 
 Holiness, as demanded and provided by 
 
 the Gospel. J. F. B. Tinling, B.A... o 15 
 
 A Living Epistle, or Gathered Frag- 
 ments from the Correspondence of the 
 late Caroline S. Blackwell. New and 
 much enlarged edition 2 25 
 
 The Highway of Holiness, or " The 
 Higher Christian Life." Bythe Rev. 
 Charles Graham (Editor Christian Ar- 
 mour.) o» 75 
 
 The Life of Alfred Cookman. By 
 Henry B. Ridgaway, D.D., With 
 preface by Wm. Morley Punshon, 
 LL.D I 50 
 
 No Condemnation, or the True Ground 
 of Christian Triumph. By Rev. John 
 Purves, LL.D o 15 
 
 The Promise of the Father ; a Call to 
 Holiness (enlarged edition.) By Gar- 
 diner Tishbourne, Vice- Admiral o 08 
 
 The Tabernacle and its Services. By 
 
 William Brown i 00 
 
 Tabernacle and Priesthood. By H. 
 
 W. Soltau I 35 
 
 The Gospel according to Moses, as 
 seen in the Tabernacle and its various 
 services. By George Rodgers 050 
 
f 
 
 TORONTO WIM.ARD TRACT PF.POfilTORV. 
 
 Christ in the Tabernacle. By Frank 
 
 H.White $1 50 
 
 Types and Shadows. By Frank H. 
 White. A most admirable book for 
 the young. lUustrated o 10 
 
 The Tabernacle. Small edition, paper o 08 
 
 The Tabernacle of Israel. Illustrated 
 
 by H. W. Soltau. Extra Cloth 4 75 
 
 The Holy Vessels and Furniture of 
 the Tabernacle of Israel. Extra 
 cloth. Highly illustrated by H. W. 
 Soltau 4 75 
 
 The Jewish Temple. By George 
 
 Rodgers. Paper o 15 
 
 The True Tabernacle. By George C. 
 
 ^Needham. Cloth i 00 
 
 Mr. Needham's exposition of these 
 Old Testament types, have created a 
 deep interest in Christian Circles. 
 The present series of Lectures will 
 prove a great help to Bible students. 
 
 Important Truths, being Nos. i to 12 of 
 
 Lincoln Leaflets o 30 
 
 Lincoln Leaflets. Per packet o 15 
 
 Lectures on the Epistles of St. John... o 60 
 
 Lectures on the Epistles to the He- 
 brews o 45 
 
 Lectures on the Revelation. Two vols. 
 
 in one. Cloth gilt i 50 
 
 Expository Lectures on the Epistle 
 
 to the Hebrews. 2 vols. Cloth ... 4 00 
 
 Christ in the Church. Cloth 180 
 
 The Lord's Prayer, Lectures on. Cloth i 80 
 
 ^5. 
 
'S , 
 
 TORONTO WILLARD TRACT DliPOblTORY. 
 
 Christ and the Scriptures. Cloth 45c. 
 
 Paper 30c. Large edition $1 00 
 
 " We thank God with a full heart 
 for this fresh, powerful, living utter- 
 a:ice of great (and some of them for- 
 gotten) truths." — British Herald, 
 
 " To all disciples of Jesus this work 
 commends itself at once, by its grasp 
 of truth, its insight, its profound sim- 
 plicity, the life which is in it, and its 
 spiritual force." — Christian Work, 
 
 Christ Crucified. Cloth i 00 
 
 Conversion. (Illustrated from the Bible.) 
 
 Cloth I 00 
 
 Life of Faith. (Its Nature and Power.) 
 
 Cloth o 75 
 
 Thoughts on the Book of Revelation 
 
 and the Church of Christ o 30 
 
 The Hidden Life or Thoughts on 
 
 Communion with God. Cloth i 50 
 
 By C. H. SPURGEON. 
 The Treasury of David. An original 
 
 exposition of the Book of Psalms, and 
 
 other collections on the same. 4 vols. 
 
 royal vo, cloth, per vol 2 25 
 
 Spurgeon's Lectures, or Lectures to my 
 
 Students. Cloth o 75 
 
 Types and Emblems ; collection of ser- 
 mons I 00 
 
 The Saint and his Saviour ; (The pro- 
 gress of the soul in the knowledge of 
 Jesus.) I 00 
 
 Morning by Morning, or Daily Read- 
 ings for the family or the closet. 
 (Sixty-fifth thousand.) i 00 
 
* ' 
 
 Toronto willard tract depository. 
 
 1 
 T 
 
 I 
 t 
 
 t 
 
 i 
 
 Evening by Evening. (Fortieth thou- 
 sand $1 oo 
 
 Flashes of Thought. Being i,ooo choice 
 
 Extracts. Cloth i 50 
 
 Trumpet Calls to Christian Energy. 
 
 Cloth ..* '. I 00 
 
 Gleanings among the Sheaves. Cloth o 45 
 
 Christ's Glorious Achievements, (new) o 30 
 " Seldom, we venture to think, has 
 such a glorified theme been handled 
 after such a glorious fashion. Every 
 page drops fatness — it is a rare spirit- 
 ual feast." — The Christian. 
 
 A Man in Christ. An address delivered 
 
 by request, Dec. 4th, 1876 o ». j 
 
 Your own Salvation, (new) 010 
 
 Baptism of the Holy Ghost. By Asa 
 
 Mahan, D.D. Cloth i 25 
 
 Baptism of the Holy Ghost. By Asa 
 
 Mahan, D.D. ; and Endowment of 
 
 Power, by Finney. Cloth o 60 
 
 In the Power of the Spirit, or. Christian 
 
 Experience in the light of the Bible. 
 
 By W. E. Boardman. Cloth i 00 
 
 Mission of the Spirit. By Rev. L. R. 
 
 Dunn. Cloth i 25 
 
 Gift of the Holy Ghost. By Rev. E. 
 
 Davis. Extra cloth 80c. nett, cloth 
 
 60c. nett, paper, nett o 40 
 
 Work of the Holy Spirit. By R. P. S. 
 
 2c. each, or per doz o 20 
 
 Power from on High. By Rev. Hugh 
 
 Johnson, B.D. 2c. each, or per doz. o 20 
 
 I 
 
 V, '■ i 
 
UTORY. 
 
 thou- 
 
 4 
 
 $1 oo 
 
 ^oice 
 
 I 50 
 
 I <X) 
 
 'loth o 45 
 jew) o 30 
 I has 
 died 
 very 
 >irit- 
 
 ered 
 
 o ^Z 
 
 O IP 
 
 Asa 
 
 Asa 
 
 : of 
 
 ..... o 60 
 
 :ian 
 
 ble. 
 
 .... I 00 
 
 R. 
 
 . • • . X 2 s 
 
 E. 
 oth 
 .... o 4.0 
 
 s. 
 
 .... O 20 '' 
 OZ. O 20 
 
 J